Supreme Court Upholds State’s Power to Cancel Recruitment Process: State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors.
Introduction
In a significant Supreme Court judgment on recruitment cancellation delivered on March 7, 2025, the Supreme Court of India in State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2350 of 2025) upheld the Assam Government’s decision to cancel a selection list for recruitment of 104 constables in the Assam Forest Protection Force (AFPF). The Court’s analysis provides valuable insights into the scope of judicial review of administrative decisions, particularly in the context of government recruitment processes, and clarifies the application of the doctrines of proportionality and Wednesbury unreasonableness in Indian administrative law.
Background of the Case: State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha
In July 2014, the Government of Assam, through the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force (PCCF), issued an advertisement for recruiting 104 constables in the AFPF. The selection process, conducted in May 2016, consisted of a Physical Efficiency Test (PET) followed by interviews, with no written examination component.
Shortly after the selection process, there was a change in the political regime in Assam following the Legislative Assembly elections. The new government received a note from the PCCF highlighting several irregularities in the selection process. Subsequently, on July 18, 2016, the government approved the cancellation of the select list, and a notice to this effect was published on August 17, 2016.
The respondents, who had been included in the select list, challenged this decision before the Gauhati High Court. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench ruled in favor of the respondents, holding that the irregularities could be rectified without cancelling the entire selection process. The State of Assam then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
The Supreme Court identified several questions for determination:
- Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the decision to cancel the select list
- Whether the decision to cancel was arbitrary or disproportionate
- Whether the decision infringed upon any legal rights of the respondents
- Whether new grounds were being urged to support the cancellation
Relevant Legal Doctrines
Doctrine of Proportionality in Administrative Law
The doctrine of proportionality is a principle of judicial review that assesses whether administrative actions are proportionate to the objectives sought to be achieved. It involves a more intensive review of administrative decisions than traditional approaches.
The Court explained the doctrine in reference to K. Shyam Kumar v. All India Railway Recruitment Board (2010):
“Proportionality as a legal test is capable of being more precise and fastidious than a reasonableness test as well as requiring a more intrusive review of a decision made by a public authority which requires the courts to ‘assess the balance or equation’ struck by the decision-maker.” [para 36]
The Court further elaborated that the proportionality test examines whether the chosen action strikes the right balance between addressing the issue at hand and minimizing adverse impacts.
Wednesbury Unreasonableness
The Wednesbury principle, derived from Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948), examines whether a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have arrived at it.
The Court noted the relationship between the two doctrines:
“Wednesbury applies to a decision which is so reprehensible in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral or ethical standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the issue to be decided could have arrived at it… there has been an overlapping of all these tests in its content and structure, it is difficult to compartmentalise or lay down a straitjacket formula and to say that Wednesbury has met with its death knell is too tall a statement…” [para 36]
The Supreme Court Analysis
On the Scope of Judicial Review
The Court emphasized that judicial review in recruitment matters is limited, particularly when examining policy decisions of the government:
“The approach of the single Judge of the High Court, we are afraid, has evinced an exercise of appellate jurisdiction.” [para 38]
The Court further observed:
“Two distinct conclusions in the given set of facts being clearly possible and the successor Government having taken a view, which by no means was unreasonable and/or implausible, the writ court instead of substituting its view and/or imposing its own decision as to what would have been and was the correct option that the Government should have preferred in lieu of the other option actually preferred, ought to have stayed at a distance instead.” [para 39]
On the Interview-Only Selection Process
The Court expressed concerns about selection processes based solely on interviews:
“It is further useful to remember that the Government itself felt that the selection being entirely based on interview, the same admitted an element of arbitrariness and that the assessment of candidates being based merely on the basis of marks at the interview, was reasonable for drawing a presumption of being misused for favouritism and could well be regarded as suffering from the vice of arbitrariness.” [para 40]
While the Court acknowledged that selection through interview alone is not inherently invalid (citing Kiran Gupta v. State of U.P. (2000)), it emphasized the need for fairness and transparency in recruitment processes:
“Last but not the least, having regard to present times when corruption has been held to be a walk of life by certain responsible citizens of the country, it would have been desirable if the process of recruitment of 104 Constables were conducted after framing of recruitment rules and also prescribing a written examination to keep the process absolutely above board.” [para 35]
On the Irregularities in the Selection Process
The Court found merit in the concerns raised by the PCCF in the note dated July 4, 2016, which highlighted several significant issues:
- Out of 104 selected candidates, 64 belonged to Kamrup (Metro) and Kamrup (Rural) districts
- No candidate was selected from 16 districts, including Hill districts, Barak Valley districts, and BTC districts
- These 16 districts represented 52% of the state’s population
- Reservation policies were violated in calling candidates for interview and in preparation of the final list
- Merit candidates from reserved categories were not considered for open category posts
The Court observed:
“On an overall study of the note, no person of reasonable prudence would be left in doubt that the process had a coat of discernible taint suggesting impropriety and bias, if not corruption.” [para 42]
On the Rights of Selected Candidates
The Court reiterated the established position that mere selection does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment:
“The law in this behalf appears to be well settled… the legal principle obtaining herein is not in dispute that the selectees do not have any legal right of appointment subject, inter alia, to bona fide action on the part of the State.” [para 26, 27]
However, the Court clarified that this does not give the government unlimited discretion:
“The State has no licence to act in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons.” [para 24, quoting Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991)]
The Court further noted:
“Any decision taken not to appoint despite there being vacancies and a valid select list, obviously, is in the nature of a policy decision. It has to be borne in mind that securing public employment is the dream of many, who put their heart and soul to prepare for it.” [para 54]
Supreme Court Upholds Recruitment Cancellation in Assam
Applying the doctrine of proportionality, the Court upheld the state’s decision to cancel the selection process:
“Applying the test of proportionality, the decision taken by the successor Government of cancelling the process initiated by the earlier Government cannot be said to be so disproportionate and incommensurate with the illegalities/irregularities detected that interference could have been said to be legitimately warranted.” [para 42]
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the Gauhati High Court, permitting the State of Assam to initiate a fresh recruitment process. As a measure of relief to the respondents, the Court directed:
“The respondents, if they choose to apply in pursuance of such advertisement, shall be considered for appointment waiving their age bar as well as waiving insignificant minor deficiencies in physical measurement as well as insignificant requirements of the PET, considering that almost a decade has passed since the earlier process was initiated.” [para 64]
Supreme Court Judgment: Implications and Significance
The Supreme Court judgment on recruitment cancellation has several significant implications:
- Balance of powers: It reinforces judicial restraint in reviewing administrative decisions, particularly those involving policy considerations.
- Recruitment process integrity: It emphasizes the importance of fair and transparent recruitment processes, suggesting the desirability of written examinations and proper recruitment rules.
- Rights of candidates: It clarifies that while selected candidates do not have an absolute right to appointment, the government must act in good faith when cancelling selection processes.
- Application of proportionality: It demonstrates how courts should apply the proportionality test to administrative decisions, examining whether the chosen action strikes the right balance among available options.
- Political transitions: It provides guidance on how successor governments may review and reconsider decisions of previous administrations, emphasizing that such reviews must be based on legitimate concerns rather than merely political differences.
Comparison with Other Landmark Judgments
The Court distinguished this case from Anamica Mishra v. UPPSC (1990), Rajesh P.U. v. Union of India (2003), and Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (2021) where the courts had intervened to protect candidates when the irregularities were limited to specific aspects of the selection process.
In contrast, the Court found that the present case involved systemic issues affecting the entire selection process, as noted in Sachin Kumar:
“Where a recourse to unfair means has taken place on a systemic scale, it may be difficult to segregate the tainted from the untainted participants in the process. Large-scale irregularities including those which have the effect of denying equal access to similarly circumstanced candidates are suggestive of a malaise which has eroded the credibility of the process.” [para 35]
Conclusion
State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha represents a significant contribution to Indian administrative law, particularly concerning judicial review of government recruitment processes. It reaffirms the principle that courts should exercise restraint when reviewing policy decisions, while also emphasizing that such decisions must be made in good faith and based on legitimate concerns.
The supreme court judgment on recruitment cancellation highlights the importance of fairness, transparency, and inclusivity in public employment, suggesting that governments should frame proper recruitment rules and include written examinations in selection processes to minimize arbitrariness and favoritism.
For candidates aspiring to public employment, the judgment serves as a reminder that while selection does not guarantee appointment, they retain the right to challenge decisions that are arbitrary or made in bad faith.
