Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Assam and its officers against the judgment of the Gauhati High Court, which had quashed the cancellation of a select list for 104 posts of Constables in the Assam Forest Protection Force. The recruitment process was initiated by an advertisement dated 23rd July 2014. After physical efficiency tests and interviews, a select list was prepared in May 2016. However, following a change in political regime, the new PCCF submitted a note on 4th July 2016 highlighting serious anomalies, including violation of the reservation policy and judgments of the Supreme Court. Based on this note, the Government cancelled the select list on 18th July 2016, and a notice was published on 17th August 2016. A fresh advertisement was issued on 14th April 2017. The respondents, whose names were in the select list, challenged the cancellation and the fresh advertisement before the Gauhati High Court. The single Judge allowed the writ petition, holding that the irregularities could be rectified without cancelling the entire process. The Division Bench upheld this view. The State appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the respondents had no indefeasible right to appointment and that the Government was justified in cancelling the selection process due to serious irregularities. The Court noted that no written examination was conducted, and the selection was based solely on interview, leading to a skewed representation from only two districts. The decision to cancel was not arbitrary or mala fide, and the High Court exceeded its limited scope of judicial review. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders and allowed the State to proceed with a fresh recruitment process.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment - Cancellation of Select List - No Indefeasible Right - Candidates whose names appear in a select list have no indefeasible right to appointment; the Government is not bound to fill vacancies and may cancel the selection process for valid reasons. The High Court erred in directing the State to proceed with the selection despite serious irregularities. (Paras 13, 18-20) B) Service Law - Judicial Review - Scope - Cancellation of Selection Process - The court's power of judicial review over administrative decisions is limited to Wednesbury unreasonableness; it cannot substitute its own view. The decision to cancel the select list based on the PCCF's note highlighting anomalies was not arbitrary or mala fide. (Paras 14-15, 18-20) C) Service Law - Reservation Policy - Violation - Cancellation of Entire Process - Where the selection process is vitiated by serious irregularities, including violation of reservation policy and lack of written examination, the entire process can be cancelled. The doctrine of proportionality does not apply when the process itself is tainted. (Paras 4, 18-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the cancellation of the select list and directing the State to proceed with the selection process despite serious irregularities, and whether the selected candidates had any vested right to appointment.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the Gauhati High Court, and upheld the cancellation of the select list. The State is permitted to start the recruitment process afresh.
Law Points
- No indefeasible right to appointment
- cancellation of selection process justified for serious irregularities
- judicial review limited to Wednesbury unreasonableness
- doctrine of proportionality not applicable when entire process tainted
