Service Law – Selection – Cancellation of select list – An advertisement was issued in the year 2014 to fill up 104 posts of constables in Assam Forest Protection Force – Process of selection was conducted in the year 2016 – Thereafter, there was a change in political regime – The incumbent PCCF noted serious anomalies in the selection process – Based on such note, the Government cancelled the select list – Subsequent thereto, a fresh advertisement dated 14.04.2017 was issued – Two sets of writ petitions were filed – The first writ petition challenged the decision of cancellation of the select list and the other writ petition challenged the advertisement dated 14.04.2017 – The Single Judge of the High Court allowed first of the two writ petitions and held that the irregularities from which the select list allegedly suffered can be rectified – The said decision was upheld by the Division Bench of High Court – Correctness:
Held: It is true that the law does not postulate a fetter on the authority of the employer-State and it is within the domain of the Government when to initiate a process of recruitment for public employment, either according to recruitment rules or even in the absence thereof, it is for the Government of the day to decide in which manner it proposes to conduct selection, what would be the various stages the candidates aspiring for appointment have to pass through in order to be placed in the select list, who would be the selectors, and how weightage is to be given to each of the testing methods, a great deal of credence is lent to a process if it is fairly and transparently conducted in accordance with rules, whatever be its source, without the slightest hint of any bias or favouritism or nepotism – Normally, it is not for the courts to interfere unless the process smacks of mala fides – The facts presented evince that it is the successor Government that had taken an informed decision not to proceed with the earlier process and to start a new process – At that stage of decision making, possibly, three options were available to the Government, being –
(i) allow the process to be taken to its logical conclusion, without being unduly bothered by the illegalities/irregularities detected and referred to by the PCCF; (ii) cancel the entire process and start it anew; and (iii) separate the grain from the chaff and to proceed with the former and complete the process – Once the Government arrived at the decision considering the illegalities/irregularities detected by the PCCF that the process ought to be started afresh and preferred the second option to the first and third options, thereby cancelling the previous process, the High Court ought to have applied the proportionality test to adjudge whether the perfect balance was struck by preferring that option out of the other available options – Such test was not applied by the High Court – The larger public interest that the successor Government had in mind was not kept in view by the single Judge of the High Court – The decision to cancel the select list has the marks etched to proceed towards such commitment and achieving the greater good – Such a noble initiative was, by no means, open to scrutiny by the judicial review court – This Court, thus, unhesitatingly arrive at the conclusion that based on the note of the PCCF dated 04.07.2016 and the recommendation made by him for cancellation of the select list, the decision of the Government to approve the said note and, thereby, cancel the select list did not stand vitiated to attract its invalidation either by application of the doctrine of Wednesbury unreasonableness or proportionality. [Paras 35, 37, 39, 45]
Constitution of India – Art.226 – Whether the decision of the appellants to cancel the select list infringed the legal rights of the respondents for which a writ petition u/Art.226 of the Constitution could be maintained:
Held: Any decision taken not to appoint despite there being vacancies and a valid select list, obviously, is in the nature of a policy decision – The law is clear that the policy decision not to carry the process forward must be taken bona fide, there has to be justifiable reason if the process is abandoned mid-way, and such decision must not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or the whims of the decision maker – A writ court may, upon reaching the requisite satisfaction, intervene in such manner and make such directions as the facts and circumstances warrant – This Court, therefore, do not find it acceptable that the aspirants, not having an indefeasible or vested right of appointment, do not also have the right to question any decision adverse to their interest affecting achievement of their goals to secure public employment – Whether, and to what extent, any relief should be granted, must depend on the facts of each case – On facts and in the circumstances, however, the respondents’ legal rights were not infringed because of absence of grant of legitimacy to the select list by way of an approval from the Government. [Paras 54, 55]
Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of Wednesbury
unreasonableness – Doctrine of proportionality – discussed.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.