Successor Government Cannot Ignore Past Illegalities: Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation of Assam Forest Recruitment

A Tainted Process Cannot Be Allowed to Stand - Supreme Court of India upholding the Assam Government’s decision to cancel the 2016 select list for recruitment of 104 Constables in the Assam Forest Protection Force (AFPF). The Court ruled that the selection process suffered from "serious irregularities," including "blatant violations of the reservation policy" and "unfair district-wise representation," which justified the decision of the successor government to cancel the entire selection and initiate a fresh process.

Justice Dipankar Datta, delivering the judgment, observed: “The successor Government cannot blink over the illegalities committed by the previous Government. If illegalities have been committed, the same should be rectified.”

In 2014, the Assam Government initiated a recruitment drive for 104 Constables in the Assam Forest Protection Force (AFPF). The selection process consisted of a Physical Efficiency Test (PET) followed by an interview, with no written examination. The then Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) prepared the final select list in May 2016, just before the state elections.

However, with a change in the political regime in May 2016, the new PCCF raised serious concerns about the selection process. In a report dated July 4, 2016, he flagged multiple anomalies, including the fact that 64 out of the 104 selected candidates belonged to just two districts—Kamrup (Metro) and Kamrup (Rural), while 16 districts, including hill districts and backward areas, had no representation at all.

The report further revealed that the reservation policy had been grossly violated, as meritorious reserved-category candidates were not placed in the general category, thereby depriving other deserving candidates of selection. Highlighting these irregularities, the Assam Government issued an order on July 18, 2016, canceling the select list.

The decision was challenged in the Gauhati High Court, where a Single Judge, on May 7, 2019, ruled in favor of the candidates, stating that “the alleged irregularities could be rectified without disturbing the entire selection process.” The Division Bench, on October 8, 2021, upheld this ruling, leading the State of Assam to appeal before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court: “A Selection Process Cannot Be Conducted in an Arbitrary Manner”
The Supreme Court framed several critical legal questions in this case, the foremost being whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the cancellation of the select list. The Court observed that while a government is not bound to appoint all candidates in a select list, its decision must be "fair, reasonable, and free from arbitrariness."

The Court emphasized that the selection process was inherently flawed, as it lacked a written examination, relying entirely on interviews, which left room for favoritism, arbitrariness, and bias. The judges pointedly remarked:

"The entire process of recruitment is highly questionable, unfair, and non-transparent. A process which gives overwhelming representation to two districts while completely ignoring 16 others, covering over half the population, cannot be upheld."
The Court further held that "a recruitment process that blatantly violates the reservation policy" cannot be salvaged merely by making adjustments to the select list. Addressing the High Court’s view that the errors could have been rectified without canceling the entire process, the Supreme Court countered: "A selection process that suffers from systemic irregularities and illegalities cannot be selectively repaired. A tainted process cannot be allowed to stand."
No Indefeasible Right to Appointment
Rejecting the claim that selected candidates had an absolute right to appointment, the Court cited Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47, where it was held that "mere inclusion in a select list does not confer any indefeasible right to appointment." The government, the Court reiterated, has the discretion to cancel a recruitment process if it finds that the process has been compromised.
Addressing the larger issue of judicial interference in executive decisions, the Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s ruling, stating:
"The High Court exercised appellate jurisdiction rather than judicial review. Two distinct conclusions were possible, and the successor Government's decision was neither unreasonable nor implausible. The High Court ought to have respected this choice instead of substituting its own view."
Application of Proportionality Test: “Cancellation Was Not Disproportionate”
The Supreme Court applied the doctrine of proportionality to assess whether the Assam Government’s decision to cancel the entire selection process was excessive. The Court concluded that the cancellation was justified, as the irregularities were systemic and not isolated errors.
"Where recruitment stands vitiated due to systemic fraud or irregularities, the entire process becomes illegitimate. The Government’s decision to scrap the selection was a proportional and necessary response to the magnitude of the irregularities," the Court held.
The Court also noted that no detailed inquiry was required before canceling the select list, as the irregularities were already evident from the PCCF’s report.
"It is incorrect to suggest that a full-fledged inquiry was necessary before canceling the selection. The Government was well within its rights to take corrective action based on the material before it," the judgment stated.
Setting aside the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Assam Government and upheld the cancellation of the 2016 select list. However, considering that almost a decade had passed since the recruitment was first announced, the Court granted certain reliefs to the affected candidates.
The Supreme Court directed the Assam Government to conduct a fresh recruitment process and allowed the previously selected candidates to reapply with relaxed age and physical eligibility criteria. The Court also urged the State to frame clear recruitment rules to prevent future disputes.
"Recruitment processes must be transparent, inclusive, and legally sound. Even if rules are not framed, the selection process must be based on clear administrative instructions, which should be placed in the public domain to avoid allegations of arbitrariness," the Court directed.
This judgment reinforces the principle that government recruitment must be free from favoritism and conducted in a fair, transparent manner. It also serves as an important precedent in cases where successor governments seek to rectify past irregularities in public employment. By ruling that cancellation of a tainted process is justified if the irregularities are systemic, the Supreme Court has upheld the primacy of fair recruitment over procedural technicalities.
Date of Decision: March 7, 2025