A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 598 : 2025 INSC 334 (Dipankar Datta & Manmohan, JJ.) examines the legality of a successor Government’s decision to cancel a select list prepared for 104 posts of constables in the Assam Forest Protection Force after a PCCF note flagged systemic anomalies. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court erred in substituting its view for executive choice and whether the cancellation was vitiated by Wednesbury unreasonableness or disproportionality.

The Court analysed precedent on:

(i) absence of indefeasible right arising from mere empanelment;

(ii) circumstances where cancellation is justified because irregularities are systemic and irreparable; 

(iii) interplay between Wednesbury reasonableness and the doctrine of proportionality.

The PCCF’s note (4.7.2016) described district-wise skewed selections, violation of reservation principles, and instances of non-meritorious inclusions facts the successor Government relied on to cancel the list and issue fresh advertisement. The Court held that where an executive, acting bona fide and on cogent material, concludes that a process has lost legitimacy (systemic violation of reservation and merit), judicial interference is not warranted merely because some irregularities could be individually corrected.

The High Court’s orders directing continuation of the earlier process were characterized as appellate intervention rather than permissible judicial review. The Supreme Court quashed the High Court judgments, upheld the cancellation, granted liberty to re-advertise and directed that respondents, if they reapply, be considered with specified relaxations. 

Keywords: Service Law; Selection; Cancellation of select list; Doctrine of Wednesbury unreasonableness; Doctrine of proportionality, Assam Forest Protection Force; Article 226; policy decision; recruitment for public employment.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arose from an advertisement dated 23 July 2014 for 104 constable posts in the Assam Forest Protection Force and a selection process culminating in May 2016. After elections produced a successor Government, the incumbent PCCF submitted a detailed note dated 4 July 2016 alleging systemic anomalies disproportionate selection from Kamrup districts, total absence of selected candidates from 16 districts (representing roughly 52% of Assam’s population), failure to honour reservation breakdowns, and inclusion of clearly non-meritorious candidates (e.g., a candidate ranked 162 placed within General vacancy list). Relying on that note, the Government cancelled the select list by order dated 18 July 2016 and published a notice on 17 August 2016. A fresh advertisement followed on 14 April 2017.

Writ petitions in the Gauhati High Court challenged cancellation and the fresh advertisement; a Single Judge allowed the petition challenging cancellation (7.5.2019), reasoning the irregularities could be rectified and the “grain” separated from the “chaff”. The Division Bench (8.10.2021) upheld the Single Judge. The State obtained special leave and appealed. The Supreme Court’s task was to decide whether the High Court wrongly interfered with an executive policy choice and whether cancellation offended Wednesbury principles or proportionality. The Court reviewed precedent ranging from Shankarsan Dash (no indefeasible right on empanelment) to K. Shyam Kumar (proportionality analysis) and Sachin Kumar (systemic v. segregable irregularities), applying these to the PCCF’s findings and the successor Government’s bona fide decision.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The recruitment advertisement (23.7.2014) led to a selection process where a Physical Efficiency Test qualified candidates for viva voce interviews conducted in May 2016. The Central Selection Committee, chaired by the then PCCF, prepared a select list of 104 candidates and submitted it to the Government. In May 2016 a change of regime occurred. The new PCCF’s 4.7.2016 note recorded that 3518 candidates were called for interview against 104 posts (≈34:1 ratio), that 64/104 selected candidates hailed from Kamrup (Metro/Rural), and no candidate was selected from 16 districts including Hill, Barak Valley and BTC districts areas constituting ~1.60 crore of Assam’s 3.11 crore population.

The note further asserted that reservation norms were ignored and that meritorious reserved-category candidates had been improperly assigned to reserved slots, thereby depriving rightful claimants. It flagged instances of manifest non-merit (candidate at Serial No.162 included in General list where only 50 vacancies existed). Acting on these findings without a separate inquiry alleged by respondents the Government approved cancellation (18.7.2016) and published notice (17.8.2016). A fresh advertisement (14.4.2017) followed.

Writ petitions challenged cancellation (W.P.(C) 4532 of 2016) and the subsequent advertisement (W.P.(C) 2428 of 2017). The High Court allowed the challenge to cancellation; the State appealed. The Supreme Court recorded competing contentions: appellants asserted bona fide cancellation to cure systemic illegality and primarily relied on Shankarsan Dash; respondents contended the PCCF note could not substitute for a fact-finding inquiry and that irregularities affected a subset (34 candidates), thus curable without cancelling the entire list.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED 

i. Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the Government’s decision to cancel the select list?
ii. Whether the cancellation was vitiated by Wednesbury unreasonableness or disproportionality?
iii. Whether empanelment conferred any legal right enabling a writ under Article 226?
iv. Whether the successor Government could act on subsequent material (PCCF note) to justify cancellation?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The empanelled candidates possessed no indefeasible right of appointment; empanelment is eligibility only.
ii. The Government acted on a meticulous PCCF note pointing to systemic irregularities, legitimising cancellation as a bona fide policy decision.
iii. The High Court erred by exercising appellate functions — directing rectification instead of respecting executive discretion — contrary to Shankarsan Dash and allied authorities.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The cancellation order relied solely on the PCCF note; no inquiry was conducted, so the allegation of systemic illegality remained unproved.
ii. Only a subset (34 candidates) were implicated; the defects were curable by reallocation and correction without annulling the entire select list.
iii. Absence of recruitment rules and lack of written examination did not ipso facto vitiate the process where selection could be saved for untainted candidates.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court thoroughly surveyed precedent. It reiterated that empanelment does not automatically create a right to appointment (Shankarsan Dash, Subash Chander Marwaha), but also emphasised that executive decisions not to appoint must be bona fide and not arbitrary.

The Court contrasted two ends of the spectrum:

(i) systemic fraud/irregularity making segregation impossible, warranting total cancellation;

(ii) isolated malpractices where segregation and continuation are possible (Sachin Kumar).

Applying this framework to the PCCF’s 4.7.2016 note, the Court found cogent material demonstrating systemic breach gross geographic skew, wholesale non-observance of reservation, inclusion of clearly non-meritorious persons amounting to a credibility erosion of the process. The Court held that the Division Bench and Single Judge impermissibly substituted their view, treating the case as an appellate correction rather than confined judicial review. The proportionality test, the Court said, was not applied by the High Court; had the High Court applied it, deference to a bona fide executive corrective measure aiming at larger public interest and representational fairness would likely have been warranted.

The Court further clarified that Wednesbury and proportionality doctrines are complementary; cancellation here was neither irrational nor disproportionate. Finally, on the right to move under Article 226, the Court held that while empanelment does not confer an indefeasible right, empanelled candidates retain locus to challenge arbitrary or mala fide executive policy decisions; however, the respondents’ legal rights had not been infringed on facts because the select list lacked governmental approval to confer legitimacy. Result: High Court judgments quashed; appeal allowed; liberty to re-advertise; respondents granted consideration with specified relaxations under Article 142.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The cancellation was validly grounded on cogent materials demonstrating systemic violations (districtal skew, breach of reservation norms, instances of non-merit) such that the successor Government, acting bona fide, could cancel the list. Judicial review will not supplant a legitimate executive policy choice unless it is arbitrary, mala fide, or disproportionate; here it was neither. The High Court’s direction to continue the process amounted to appellate substitution and was beyond permissible review.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court observed that recruitment without statutory rules and reliance solely on viva voce invites litigation and that framing recruitment rules or publishing administrative standards is desirable. The Court also reiterated that additional material may be considered where larger public interest is implicated (distinguishing Mohinder Singh Gill in context).

c. GUIDELINES 

i. Executive recruiting authorities should frame rules or publish selection standards to reduce arbitrariness.
ii. Where a process is cancelled and fresh recruitment is ordered, courts may permit age/physical relaxations for affected candidates in exercise of equitable powers (here under Article 142).
iii. Judicial review must differentiate between systemic and segregable irregularities; only the former justifies total cancellation.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment realigns judicial approach to succession-era administrative corrections: it safeguards a successor Government’s power to remediate systemic illegality subject to bona fides and proportionality, but it also preserves the displaced aspirants’ right to challenge arbitrary conduct.

Practically, the decision underscores institutional imperatives:

(a) transparent recruitment rules;

(b) written examinations where feasible;

(c) robust district-wise and reservation compliance;

(d) careful documentation before executive cancellation to withstand judicial scrutiny.

For litigators, this case affirms that success in an Article 226 challenge will turn on proving either mala fides, irrationality, or disproportionateness of the executive act; mere inconvenience or loss of expectation is insufficient. The Court’s grant of pragmatic relief (consideration with relaxations) balances rule of law with equity, signalling judicial sensitivity to aspirants’ reliance while upholding public interest and institutional integrity.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, [1991] 2 SCR 567 : (1991) 3 SCC 47.

2. B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1942: [1966] 3 SCR 682.

3. Kiran Gupta v. State of U.P., (2000) Supp. 3 SCR 474 : (2000) 7 SCC 719.

4. Anamica Mishra v. UPPSC, (1989) Supp. 2 SCR 124 : (1990) Supp SCC 692.

5. Union of India & Ors. v. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu, [2003] Supp. 1 SCR 883 : (2003) 7 SCC 285.

6. Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board & Ors., [2021] 2 SCR 1073 : (2021) 4 SCC 631.

7. Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commission, [1978] 2 SCR 272 : (1978) 1 SCC 405.

8. Jitendra Kumar v. State of Haryana, [2007] 13 SCR 98 : (2008) 2 SCC 161.

9. State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, [1974] 1 SCR 165 : (1974) 3 SCC 220.

10. Jai Singh Dalal v. State of Haryana, 1993 Supp. 2 SCC 600.

11. All India Railway Recruitment Board v. K. Shyam Kumar, (2010) 6 SCC 614.

12. R.S. Mittal v. Union of India, (1995) Supp. 2 SCC 230.

13. Dinesh Kumar Kashyap v. South East Central Railway, (2019) 12 SCC 798.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Constitution of India, Article 14, Article 16, Article 162, Article 226 and Article 142.