The Supreme Court has upheld the Assam government's decision to cancel the recruitment list for 104 Constables in the Assam Forest Protection Force (AFPF). The recruitment process, initially conducted in 2014 under the Indian National Congress government, was revoked by the succeeding BJP-led government in 2016 due to significant irregularities.
Background of the Case
The recruitment drive for 104 AFPF constable positions was initiated through an advertisement issued on July 23, 2014. The selection process, conducted in May 2016, involved a Physical Efficiency Test (PET) followed by interviews. The selected candidates, whose names appeared in the recruitment list, claimed their appointments were unjustly revoked by the new government without a thorough inquiry.
Following a change in political leadership in May 2016, the newly appointed Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) flagged significant anomalies in the selection process. Consequently, the Assam government issued an order on July 18, 2016, canceling the recruitment list, citing violations of the reservation policy and a lack of transparency.
On August 17, 2016, a public notice was issued, officially declaring the cancellation and announcing a fresh recruitment process in April 2017. Dissatisfied candidates challenged the cancellation in the Gauhati High Court, which ruled in their favor. However, the State of Assam subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Clarifies: Agreement to Lease Does Not Create Leasehold Rights Without Execution
The Supreme Court, in its ruling, noted several critical flaws in the recruitment process:
“The selection being entirely based on interviews admitted an element of arbitrariness. The assessment of candidates solely on interview marks raises a reasonable presumption of favoritism and arbitrariness.”
The Court further stated that conducting recruitment through executive orders, without formal recruitment rules or a written examination, compromises transparency and fairness. The absence of a written test made the process susceptible to bias, as merit could not be objectively assessed.
Key Irregularities Highlighted
The Supreme Court examined the PCCF’s note, which outlined multiple irregularities:
Geographical Disparity: 64 out of 104 selected candidates belonged to just two districts (Kamrup Metro and Kamrup Rural), leaving 16 districts—representing 52% of Assam’s population—without a single selected candidate.
Violation of Reservation Policy: Meritorious reserved-category candidates were incorrectly counted under their reserved quotas instead of the general category, depriving other eligible reserved candidates of fair opportunities.
Absence of Written Examination: The entire selection process relied only on interviews, increasing the potential for favoritism and bias.
Inclusion of Non-Meritorious Candidates: Several candidates were included in the final list despite not meeting merit-based criteria.
“Fostering diversity and inclusivity in public service, ensuring representation from historically backward districts, and maintaining merit-based selection should be the commitment of all governments,” the Court emphasized.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Rules: Cancellation of Power of Attorney Does Not Invalidate Prior Property Sales
The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by substituting its judgment for that of the Assam government. It noted that the government’s decision to cancel the process was based on justifiable concerns about fairness and legality.
“The government, having serious reservations about the efficacy of the selection process, was justified in deciding to cancel it and initiate a fresh, transparent recruitment process,” the ruling stated.
The Court upheld the Assam government’s right to cancel the recruitment list and directed that future selections must follow clear recruitment rules to prevent similar disputes. It also granted certain relaxations for candidates who wish to apply under the new recruitment drive, including age concessions and minor waivers in eligibility criteria.
This ruling sets a strong precedent for ensuring fairness in public sector recruitment. The Court underscored that policy decisions regarding recruitment must be taken in good faith and must avoid arbitrariness. Additionally, it reaffirmed that selected candidates do not automatically acquire a right to appointment, especially if the selection process is flawed.
By upholding the Assam government's decision, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle that recruitment processes must be conducted transparently and in line with legal provisions. This judgment highlights the necessity of written examinations, well-defined selection criteria, and adherence to reservation policies to maintain public trust in government hiring processes.
Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 2350 of 2025
Case Title – State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors.
