# State of Assam & Ors v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 334
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-03-07
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No.2350 of 2025
- **Bench:** Dipankar Datta, Manmohan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-assam-ors-v-arabinda-rabha-ors-38871
- **Pages:** 31

## Headnote

Whether the High Court was justified in its interference with
the decision made by the Government to cancel the select list;
Whether the decision of the appellants to cancel the select list
was either vulnerable on application of the doctrine of Wednesbury
unreasonableness or suspect applying the doctrine of proportionality
and, therefore, liable to invalidation; 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.
Headnotes†
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
* Author
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
599
State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors.
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

## Text

_Characters 0–39,966 of 67,798. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39966 for what follows._

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 598 : 2025 INSC 334
State of Assam & Ors.
v.
Arabinda Rabha & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No.2350 of 2025)
07 March 2025
[Dipankar Datta* and Manmohan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in its interference with
the decision made by the Government to cancel the select list;
Whether the decision of the appellants to cancel the select list
was either vulnerable on application of the doctrine of Wednesbury
unreasonableness or suspect applying the doctrine of proportionality
and, therefore, liable to invalidation; 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.
Headnotes†
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
* Author
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
599
State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors.
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]
600
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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.
Case Law Cited
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [1991] 2 SCR 567 : (1991) 3
SCC 47; B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore [1966] 3 SCR 682:
AIR 1966 SC 1942 - followed.
Kiran Gupta v. State of U.P [2000] Supp. 3 SCR 474 : (2000) 7
SCC 719; Anamica Mishra v. UPPSC [1989] Supp. 2 SCR 124 :
(1990) Supp SCC 692; Union of India & Ors. v. Rajesh P.U.,
Puthuvalnikathu [2003] Supp. 1 SCR 883 : (2003) 7 SCC 285;
Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board & Ors.
[2021] 2 SCR 1073 : (2021) 4 SCC 631 - relied on.
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commission [1978] 2 SCR
272 : (1978) 1 SCC 405; Jitendra Kumar v. State of Haryana
[2007] 13 SCR 98 : (2008) 2 SCC 161; State of Haryana v.
Subash Chander Marwaha [1974] 1 SCR 165 : (1974) 3 SCC 220;
Jai Singh Dalal v. State of Haryana [1992] Supp. 3 SCR 816 :
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
601
State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors.
1993 Supp. 2 SCC 600; All India Railway Recruitment Board v.
K. Shyam Kumar (2010) 6 SCC 614; Smt. Swaran Lata v. Union of
India [1979] 2 SCR 953 : (1979) 3 SCC 165; R.S. Mittal v. Union
of India [1995] 2 SCR 1127 : 1995 Supp. 2 SCC 230; Dinesh
Kumar Kashyap v. South East Central Railway [2018] 14 SCR
947: (2019) 12 SCC 798 - referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Service Law; Selection; Cancellation of select list; Doctrine of
Wednesbury unreasonableness; Doctrine of proportionality; Assam
Forest Protection Force; Article 226 of Constitution of India; Legal
Rights; Policy decision; Recruitment for public employment.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2350 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.10.2021 of the Gauhati
High Court in WA No. 102 of 2021
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Sr. A.A.G., Ms. Diksha Rai, Piyush Vyas,
Ms. Purvat Wali, Vijay Deora, Irfan Hasieb, Krishnajyoti Deka.
Adv. for the Respondents:
Manish Goswami, Sr. Adv., Priyank Adhyaru, Priyonkoo Gogoi,
Rameshwar Prasad Goyal.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Dipankar Datta, J.
Facts
1.
A process of recruitment was set in motion by the office of the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force,
602
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Assam,1 Government of Assam, by issuing an advertisement dated
23rd July, 2014 to fill up of 104 posts of Constables in the Assam
Forest Protection Force.2
2.
Process of selection was conducted in May, 2016. The respondents,
who had applied pursuant to the advertisement, participated in the
process. They qualified in the physical efficiency test,3 whereafter
they were interviewed. It was claimed by the respondents that the
select list prepared by the Central Selection Committee, headed by
the then PCCF, contained names of candidates found, prima facie,
fit for selection and appointment as Constables in the AFPF and
that such list, wherein their names figured, had been submitted to
the Government for approval.
3.
In May, 2016 itself, there was a change in the political regime of Assam
pursuant to the elections held to the Assam Legislative Assembly.
4.
On 4th July, 2016, the incumbent PCCF submitted a note to the
Government highlighting serious anomalies that had crept in,
in the selection process. Based on such note of the PCCF but
without conducting any inquiry, as alleged by the respondents, the
Government approved cancellation of the select list vide order of the
Secretary to the Government of Assam, Environment and Forests
Department dated 18th July, 2016. The sole reason assigned for such
cancellation was that the process had been conducted in violation
of the reservation policy as well as judgments of this Court, as
suggested by the PCCF.
5.
On 17th August, 2016, a notice was published from the office of the
PCCF in a daily newspaper informing all concerned of cancellation
of the select list. It was conveyed that further action to be taken in
the matter of recruitment of constables in the AFPF would be notified
in due course.
6.
Subsequent thereto, a fresh advertisement dated 14th April, 2017
was issued.
1
PCCF
2
AFPF
3
PET
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
603
State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors.
7.
Two sets of writ petitions4 were instituted in the Gauhati High Court.5
The first writ petition challenged the decision of cancellation of the
select list and the notice dated 17th August, 2016. The other writ
petition challenged the advertisement dated 14th April, 2017. Notice
was issued on the first writ petition on 28th April, 2017. In course of
hearing, a single Judge was informed that the advertisement dated
14th April, 2017 pertains to appointment of 132 constables. Such
advertisement was different from the 104 posts, which formed the
subject matter of the first writ petition. Considering the same, interim
stay of the advertisement dated 14th April, 2017 was not granted.
The judgments of the High Court
8.
Vide judgment and order dated 7th May, 2019, the single Judge
allowed the first of the two writ petitions, referred to above, holding,
inter alia, that the irregularities from which the select list allegedly
suffered can be rectified without disturbing the selection process
by refixing or reallocating the candidates in accordance with merit,
category and status by giving due notice to those who are likely to
be adversely affected. The single Judge was also of the view that
the chaff could be separated from the grain without much difficulty
and, therefore, the decision to view the entire selection process as
vitiated, leading to cancellation of the select list, is untenable.
9.
The appellants carried the judgment and order dated 7th May, 2019
in an intra-court appeal.
10. An Hon'ble Division Bench6 of the High Court, vide judgment and
order dated 8th October, 2021, upheld the view taken by the single
Judge and dismissed the writ appeal. The Division Bench was of
the view that prior to cancellation of the select list, no finding of fact
had been arrived at pursuant to an inquiry conducted by any duly
constituted inquiry committee and consequently, the veracity of the
irregularities or illegalities alleged had not been ascertained and that
the note of the then PCCF dated 4th July, 2016, which highlighted the
anomalies, could not have been treated to be definitive finding of fact
arrived at by the Government warranting cancellation of the selection
4
W.P. (C) 4532 of 2016 and W.P. (C) 2428 of 2017
5
High Court
6
Division Bench
604
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
list. A view was also expressed therein that the irregularities could
have been rectified and the process taken to a logical conclusion.
The challenge
11. The judgment and order of the Division Bench is the subject matter
of assail in this civil appeal, by special leave, at the instance of the
State of Assam and its officers.
The notice issuing order
12. We have noted that the notice issuing order dated 1st August, 2022
recorded that the co-ordinate bench was apprised of no written
examination being conducted and that the selection was made on
the basis of interview alone preceded by a physical test, which was
a qualifying test for appearing in the interview. It was also noted
that out of 104 selected candidates, 64 belonged to Kamrup (Metro)
and Kamrup (Rural) districts and that not a single candidate had
been selected from as many as 16 districts. Concerned thereby, the
co-ordinate bench granted stay of operation of the judgment and
order under assail till the next date of hearing.
Appellants' Contentions
13. Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, learned senior counsel and Additional
Advocate General for the appellants, contended that the writ petition
should not have been entertained in the first place by the single Judge.
According to him, neither did the empanelled candidates have any
indefeasible right of appointment against the existing vacancies nor
was the Government under any obligation to fill up the vacancies.
Inclusion of the names of the respondents in the select list was at
best a condition of eligibility without creating any vested right of
appointment; hence, such inclusion by itself did not confer upon
them the right to invoke the writ jurisdiction and seek certiorari to set
aside the decision to cancel the process as well as for mandamus
to take the process forward. The Government was well within its
right to cancel the process, for, serious irregularities had crept in
tainting the process. In such circumstances, the Government being
the sole judge of facts, its decision demanded deference rather than
being quashed on the ground that the irregularities were curable.
Heavy reliance was placed on the Constitution Bench decision in
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
605
State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors.
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India 7 in support of the contention
that the High Court - both single Judge and the Division Bench - fell
in error in making the directions it did.
14. It was also contended that apart from the fact that the respondents
lacked any legal right to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court,
bare perusal of the note of the PCCF would reveal that sufficient
justification was provided in support of the proposed cancellation of the
select list. The said note having been approved by the Government,
led to issuance of the notice dated 17th August, 2016. However, the
single Judge without even considering as to whether the decision
of the Government did suffer from any of the vices attracting judicial
review, proceeded to make directions which normally would be within
the province of an appellate authority but certainly not a judicial
review court.
15. Insofar as the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench
is concerned, Mr. Sharma contended that the note of the PCCF
was based on meticulous examination of the records and without
there being any material placed by the respondents before the High
Court to suggest that the PCCF had ignored relevant and germane
material or had considered extraneous material, the intra-court
appeal ought not to have been dismissed on the ground that no
inquiry was conducted to ascertain whether the claims made in the
said note were correct.
16. Resting on the aforesaid contentions, Mr. Sharma prayed that the
appeal be allowed and the appellants be permitted to start the
process afresh.
Respondents' Contentions
17. On behalf of the respondents, Mr. Manish Goswami, learned senior
counsel contended as follows:
(i)
The order dated 18th July, 2016 and the notice published in the
newspaper dated 17th August, 2016 would make it evident that
the only reason weighing with the Government for cancellation
was violation of the reservation policy and violation of judgments
of this Court. Therefore, the appellants cannot now be permitted
7
(1991) 3 SCC 47
606
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
to improve their case by pleadings etc., and urge new reasons
justifying the cancellation. The appellants misled this Court
while obtaining the notice issuing order dated 1st August, 2022.
(ii)
No rules were violated in preparation of the select list since
no rules had been framed to govern the selection process and
none was in operation at the relevant point of time, which is
an admitted position.
(iii) Cancellation of the process was based solely on the note dated
4th July, 2016 of the PCCF and no inquiry was ever conducted
into the alleged anomalies. On this ground alone, the appeal
is liable to be dismissed.
(iv) No challenge was laid to the select list by any unsuccessful
candidate alleging corrupt practice and/or fraudulent activity
having been resorted to by the selected candidates including the
respondents and the selection process was free from any taint.
(v)
Assuming, but not admitting, that there was some violation of
the reservation policy, even then the same was limited to only
34 selected candidates. This is evident from the averment of the
appellants before the High Court; hence, there was absolutely
no justification to cancel the entire select list containing names
of 104 persons. The impugned decision to cancel the select
list is hit by the doctrine of proportionality.
(vi) Both the single Judge as well as the Division Bench was
correct in returning findings that the alleged violation of the
reservation policy was a curable defect and could be rectified
by the authorities without disturbing the selection process by
re-fixing or reallocating the candidates in accordance to their
merit, category and status by giving due notice to those who
are likely to be adversely affected.
18. In support of the aforesaid contentions, reliance was placed by Mr.
Goswami on the following decisions of this Court:
(i)
Anamica Mishra v. UPPSC;8
(ii)
Union of India & Ors. v. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu;9
8
(1990) Supp. SCC 692
9
(2003) 7 SCC 285
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
607
State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors.
(iii) Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board
& Ors.;10 and
(iv) Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commission.11
19. Mr. Goswami finally urged that in view of the foregoing contentions
raised by him, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. He also prayed
that this Court may be pleased, in addition, to order that the directions
passed by the single Judge, as affirmed by the Division Bench, be
implemented by the appellants without any further delay.
Questions Arising for Decision
20. The broad question of law arising for decision in the light of the
judgment(s) and order(s) of the High Court is:
Whether the High Court was justified in its interference with the
decision to cancel the select list and to require the process to be
carried forward in the manner directed by it?
Answering the aforesaid question would also require us to notice
the grounds based whereon the appellants cancelled the select list.
Thus, we have to necessarily answer two other questions:
(a) whether the decision of the appellants to cancel the select
list was either vulnerable on application of the doctrine of
Wednesbury unreasonableness or suspect applying the doctrine
of proportionality and, therefore, liable to invalidation?
(b) Whether the decision of the appellants to cancel the select
list infringed the legal rights of the respondents for which a
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be
maintained?
One incidental question arising for decision is, whether the appellants
have urged new grounds to support the cancellation in addition to
those assigned earlier in any affidavit/pleading?
The final question is, what would be the just relief that can be granted
to the parties to this civil appeal?
10
(2021) 4 SCC 631
11
(1978) 1 SCC 405
608
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Analysis and Reasons
21. We have perused the judgment(s) and order(s) of the High Court and
given due consideration to the contentions advanced by the parties.
22. It would be profitable to note the precedents in the field having a
bearing on the questions arising for decision in the appeal, before
we venture to answer the questions formulated above. In our view,
these could provide valuable guidance to steer us towards the right
direction.
23. In State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha,12 this Court
held that the mere fact of certain candidates being selected for
appointment to vacancies pursuant to an advertisement did not confer
any right to be appointed on the post in question and thereby, entitle
the selectees to a writ of mandamus or any other writ compelling
the authority to make the appointment.
24. The Constitution Bench in Shankarsan Dash (supra) considered
the aforesaid decision and, taking cue from it, held that:
"7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies
are notified for appointment and adequate number of
candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire
an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be
legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely
amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply
for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire
any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules
so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all
or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that
the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner.
The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken
bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or
any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the
comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the
recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. ..."
25. Close on the heels of the above decision, a three-Judge Bench in
Jai Singh Dalal v. State of Haryana13 had the occasion to observe:
12
(1974) 3 SCC 220
13
(1993) Supp. 2 SCC 600
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
609
State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors.
"7. It will thus be seen that at the time when the writ petition
which has given rise to the present proceedings was filed,
the State Government had withdrawn the aforesaid two
notifications by the notification dated December 30, 1991.
The stage at which the last-mentioned notification came
to be issued was the stage when the HPSC was still in
the process of selecting candidates for appointment by
special recruitment. During the pendency of the present
proceedings the State Government finalised the criteria
for special recruitment by the notification of March 9,
1992. Thus, the HPSC was still in the process of selecting
candidates and had yet not completed and finalised the
select list nor had it forwarded the same to the State
Government for implementation. The candidates, therefore,
did not have any right to appointment. There was, therefore,
no question of the High Court granting a mandamus or
any other writ of the type sought by the appellants. The
law in this behalf appears to be well settled. ...."
26. Having noticed the decisions on the point as to the rights that aspiring
candidates have, we move on to notice a decision which is not only
on the point of right of a selected candidate to seek appointment
through writ remedy but also dwells with decisions of subsequent
Governments upsetting the decisions of earlier Governments.
27. One finds an extensive discussion on the tests required to be satisfied
to invalidate a decision of a subsequent Government, nullifying
a previous Government decision, in Jitendra Kumar v. State of
Haryana.14 The case involved suspension of the process of selection
by the Government because, inter alia, the cadre strength was found
to be unjustly inflated by the previous Government. The appellants
before this Court indisputably were the selected candidates and
the principal question arising for decision, in the given facts and
circumstances, was whether they had a legal right to be appointed.
This Court held, "the legal principle obtaining herein is not in dispute
that the selectees do not have any legal right of appointment subject,
inter alia, to bona fide action on the part of the State". Noticing the
decisions in Subash Chander Marwaha (supra), Shankarsan Dash
14
(2008) 2 SCC 161
610
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(supra) as well as other decisions on the point, this Court further held
that whereas the selectee as such has no legal right, the superior court
in exercise of its judicial review would not ordinarily direct issuance
of any writ in the absence of any pleading and proof of mala fide
or arbitrariness on the part of the authority, and each case has to
be considered on its own merit. Examining the point as to whether
the impugned action of the respondent-State lacked bona fide, this
Court answered in the negative. Finally, this is what was observed:
"55. We are not oblivious of the constitutional scheme that
the decisions taken by one Government in public interest
itself cannot be a ground for review thereof at the hands
of the successor Government. It is not the Government
which is in the seat of the power, matters in this behalf,
but what matters is the public interest.
56. Mr Dwivedi has drawn our attention to a decision of
this Court in State of Karnataka v. All India Manufacturers
Organisation [(2006) 4 SCC 683] wherein it was held:
(SCC pp. 708-09, para 66)
'66. Taking an overall view of the matter, it appears
that there could hardly be a dispute that the Project
is a mega project which is in the larger public interest
of the State of Karnataka and merely because there
was a change in the Government, there was no
necessity for reviewing all decisions taken by the
previous Government, which is what appears to have
happened. That such an action cannot be taken every
time there is a change of Government has been
clearly laid down in State of U.P. v. Johri Mal [(2004) 4
SCC 714] and in State of Haryana v. State of Punjab
[(2002) 2 SCC 507] where this Court observed thus:
'[I]n the matter of governance of a State or in
the matter of execution of a decision taken
by a previous Government, on the basis of a
consensus arrived at, which does not involve any
political philosophy, the succeeding Government
must be held duty-bound to continue and carry
on the unfinished job rather than putting a stop
to the same.'
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
611
State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors.
57. There cannot be any doubt in regard to the
aforementioned proposition of law but the question herein
is whether public interest would be subserved by asking
the State to proceed to make appointments. Whereas, on
the one hand, an action on the part of the State to interfere
with the good work done by the previous Government solely
on the basis of change in the regime must be deprecated,
there cannot however be any doubt whatsoever that the
successor Government cannot blink over the illegalities
committed by the previous Government. If illegalities have
been committed, the same should be rectified. When
there exists a reasonable apprehension in the mind of
the State, having regard to the overall situation including
the post-haste manner in which actions had been taken,
to cause an inquiry to be made and suspend the process
of making appointments till the result of such inquiry is
obtained, such a decision on its part per se cannot be
said to be an act of arbitrariness or unreasonableness."
28. It has not escaped our notice that the decision in Jitendra Kumar
(supra) has been doubted in All India Railway Recruitment
Board v. K. Shyam Kumar15 on the point as to whether Wednesbury
unreasonableness has been replaced by the doctrine of proportionality.
The facts in K. Shyam Kumar (supra) bear close resemblance to
the facts of the present appeal and, thus, may be noticed. Therein,
the Railway Recruitment Board (RRB) had called for applications for
appointments on Group D posts in the South-Central Railway Zone,
Secunderabad. Consequently, in excess of three lakh candidates
appeared for the written examination. Of them, ten short of two
thousand seven hundred candidates having achieved the minimum
qualifying marks in the written examination, were called for a PET.
Candidates who qualified in the PET were called for verification,
during which certain malpractices were detected in the written
examination. Additionally, there was a deluge of allegations of mass
copying, question paper leakage, and impersonation committed
during the written examination. A vigilance enquiry was conducted
and the report prima facie revealed these abovementioned illegalities.
Relying on the vigilance report, the RRB decided to conduct a re-test
15
(2010) 6 SCC 614
612
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
of the candidates who had obtained the minimum qualifying marks
in the written examination. This decision was challenged by some
candidates before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.
The tribunal did not find any irregularity or illegality with the decision
of the RRB, due to which the candidates were constrained to move
the High Court. Before the High Court, the candidates termed the
decision of the RRB as arbitrary and unreasonable. The High Court
agreed with the candidates and set aside the order directing the retest as, in the High Court's opinion, the decision was unreasonable
and violative of the Wednesbury principles. The RRB approached
this Court in appeal. In the resultant decision, this Court while
reversing the decision of the High Court discussed the scope of
both the unreasonableness test as well as the proportionality test.
It was held that the unreasonableness test looks, not necessarily at
the merits of the decision, but the way the decision was made; the
available courses of action of the deciding authority are scrutinised
to ascertain what a reasonable man would do. On the other hand,
the proportionality test is more wide reaching in its approach, closely
analysing the course of action vis-à-vis the situation requiring a
remedy. Hon'ble K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, J. explained the interplay
between these two tests as follows:
"36. Wednesbury applies to a decision which is so
reprehensible in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral
or ethical standards that no sensible person who had
applied his mind to the issue to be decided could have
arrived at it. Proportionality as a legal test is capable of
being more precise and fastidious than a reasonableness
test as well as requiring a more intrusive review of a
decision made by a public authority which requires the
courts to 'assess the balance or equation' struck by the
decision-maker. Proportionality test in some jurisdictions
is also described as the 'least injurious means' or 'minimal
impairment' test so as to safeguard the fundamental rights
of citizens and to ensure a fair balance between individual
rights and public interest. Suffice it to say that there has
been an overlapping of all these tests in its content and
structure, it is difficult to compartmentalise or lay down a
straitjacket formula and to say that Wednesbury has met
with its death knell is too tall a statement..."
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
613
State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors.
Keeping in mind these two tests, this Court noticed that the RRB
had three courses of action once the irregularities had been brought
to light. The first option was to conduct the written examination
again for all the eligible candidates, which would be expensive and
time consuming. The second option was to conduct re-test for the
candidates who had obtained the minimum qualifying marks. The
third option would have been to exclude the sixty-two candidates
who were identified as having indulged in impersonation. The RRB,
relying on the vigilance report, held that there were allegations and
prima facie evidence of mass copying as well as leakage of question
papers and these irregularities could not be tackled by just excluding
the sixty-two candidates accused of impersonation. This Court held
that the actions of the RRB to conduct the re-test for candidates who
obtained the minimum qualifying marks struck the right balance, as
the first option would have been too expensive and time consuming
and the third option would have been too restrictive in combatting
the irregularities in the examination.
29. The decision in K. Shyam Kumar (supra) further sheds light on
another aspect, that is, whether the authority can rely on subsequent
information to justify its decision. In the process, the decision in
Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) was distinguished in the following
manner:
"45. ...The principle laid down in Mohinder Singh Gill case
is not applicable where larger public interest is involved and
in such situations, additional grounds can be looked into
to examine the validity of an order. The finding recorded
by the High Court that the report of CBI cannot be looked
into to examine the validity of the order dated 4-6-2004,
cannot be sustained."
30. Bearing in mind the aforesaid precedents, we have to examine the
facts in some more detail.
31. A close look at the note of the PCCF dated 4th July, 2016 is indeed
imperative, for, it is the basic document providing justification for the
ultimate decision of cancellation. The single Judge in the judgment
dated 7th May, 2019 quoted the said note in full. We consider it
appropriate not to reproduce the note but to summarise its contents,
hereunder:
614
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports

3⁄4
The Central Selection Committee was directly constituted
by the Minister, Environment & Forests, as per the enclosed
communication.

3⁄4
All the original documents relating to PET were collected directly
by the Central Selection Committee, as per the enclosed order
of the Minister.

3⁄4
A total of 104 candidates, as per the enclosed list, were
recommended for selection/appointment as Constables by the
Central Selection Committee.

3⁄4
Out of 104 candidates, 64 selected candidates belonged either
to Kamrup or Kamrup Metro districts, which raises serious
questions about the fairness of the selection process.

3⁄4
While 18 and 46 candidates who were selected for appointment
hailed from Kamrup (Metro) and Kamrup (Rural) districts,
respectively, the other selectees hailed from the 8 named
districts with the number of candidates ranging between 1 to
9 from each district.

3⁄4
No candidate was selected from the 16 named districts which
included the Hill districts, the Barak Valley districts and the
Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) districts.

3⁄4
These 16 districts, from where not a single candidate had
been selected, represented a population of 1.60 crore out of
the population of 3.11 crore of the State of Assam as per 2011
census; thus, a population of 52% comprised in the said 16
districts would go unrepresented.

3⁄4
Not a single candidate has been selected from the Hill districts
or the Barak Valley districts or the BTC districts except one
candidate from Baksa district.

3⁄4
A total of 3518 candidates were called for interview against 104
posts, thus, making it a ratio of about 34 candidates per post.
However, reservation for the various categories like Scheduled
Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Tribes (Plain), etc. as
shown in the note were given a complete go-bye. Figures
of the number of candidates who were called from different
categories, i.e., General, ST (Plain), ST (Hills), SC, OBC/MOBC
were indicated in a chart, thereby demonstrating how the law
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
615
State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors.
governing reservation and the judgments of this Court had been
violated in calling the candidates for interview. It was observed
that candidates who ought not to have been called were called,
whereas those deserving of a call were not called.

3⁄4
Although, 15 OBC/MOBC candidates, 17 ST (Plain) candidates,
1 ST (Hills) candidate and 1 SC candidate had qualified on
merit and could have been counted as General category
candidates, they were shown to have been selected against
their respective reserved categories. As a result, a number of
candidates belonging to the reserved categories were deprived
of selection and undeserving candidates selected.

3⁄4
Reference was made to a particular candidate who was placed
at Serial No.162 in the list of General category candidates.
However, she was included in the select list for General
candidates with only 50 vacancies. Similar type of serious
irregularities or illegalities had taken place in selection of many
other candidates.

3⁄4
The entire process of recruitment is highly questionable, unfair
and non-transparent.
32. What can be deduced from the above points flagged by the PCCF,
ultimately approved by the Government, is this.
33. Papers/documents relating to the process of selection manifested
selection of aspirants from certain specified districts and without there
being any representation from a major cross-section of the population
of the State of Assam. That apart, illegalities were detected in the
process leading to preparation of the select list. Non-meritorious
aspirants, undeserving of figuring in the select list, were included.
Besides, appropriate earmarking of posts for reserved candidates
were given a complete go-bye. In addition, meritorious aspirants
belonging to the reserved category were not considered for filling
up open category vacancies but were placed against the reserved
category to which they belonged, thereby depriving other reserved
category aspirants from entering the zone of consideration for
appointment and paving the way for not so meritorious open category
candidates to be placed in the select list. The Government, having
serious reservations about the efficacy of the selection process, felt
that the situation called for cancelling the process. The question is,
616
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
whether it was so unjustified that interference in writ jurisdiction was
warranted?
34. Although the ball had been set rolling in 2014, the interview of the
candidates qualifying in the PET commenced in May, 2016 when
admittedly the elections were knocking at the door. This, per se, may
not be seen as a vitiating factor in the absence of any reference in the
note of the PCCF dated 4th July, 2016 as well as in any subsequent
decision of the Government. That apart, proceeding to conduct a
process of recruitment without there being recruitment rules but based
on executive instructions under Article 162 of the Constitution is not
open to invalidation only on such ground. The Constitution Bench
decision of this Court in B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore,16 since
followed by a coordinate bench in Smt. Swaran Lata v. Union of
India,17 may be referred to in this context. In addition, one would find
the absence of any requirement for the aspiring candidates to take
a written examination, thereby, leaving the fate of such candidates
to be determined solely and wholly on the basis of an interview.
Once again, we cannot feign ignorance of the decision of another
coordinate bench in Kiran Gupta v.