Supreme Court Upholds State’s Cancellation Of Forest Constable Select List, Grants Liberty For Fresh Recruitment

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan of the Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by the State of Assam challenging a Gauhati High Court direction that had set aside the Government’s cancellation of a select list of 104 constables in the Assam Forest Protection Force and instructed the authorities to carry the selection process forward by refixing or reallocating candidates. The central question related to whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the successor Government’s decision to cancel the earlier select list on grounds of reservation anomalies and other alleged irregularities.

The Court allowed the State’s appeal, quashed the High Court judgments and held that the decision to cancel the select list did not suffer from Wednesbury unreasonableness or disproportionality warranting judicial invalidation. The Court emphasised that selectees did not enjoy an indefeasible right to appointment but also recognised that the State must act bona fide and not arbitrarily. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The broad issue and issue (a) (supra) are, thus, answered in favour of the appellants by holding that the impugned decision of cancellation was neither unjustified nor was one which could be upset by applying the doctrines of either Wednesbury unreasonableness or proportionality.” The Court granted the State liberty to publish a fresh advertisement and directed that respondents, if they chose to apply, would be considered with age-relaxation and waivers of “insignificant minor deficiencies” in physical measurements and PET; further relaxations could be granted by the PCCF as deemed fit.

Background

The dispute arose from an advertisement dated 23 July 2014 inviting applications for 104 Constable posts in the Assam Forest Protection Force. Selection involved a Physical Efficiency Test (PET) in May 2016 followed by interviews. After a change of Government, the incumbent Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) submitted a 4 July 2016 note alleging serious anomalies: disproportionate representation (64 of the 104 selectees from Kamrup districts), absence of any selectee from 16 districts (including Hill, Barak Valley and BTC areas), and violations of the reservation policy and earlier judgments of this Court. The Government approved cancellation of the select list by order dated 18 July 2016 and a public notice followed on 17 August 2016; a fresh advertisement issued on 14 April 2017.

Two writ petitions in the Gauhati High Court produced conflicting orders: a Single Judge allowed the challenge to cancellation and directed rectification by refixing or reallocating candidates; a Division Bench upheld that view. The State appealed to the Supreme Court. Petitioners contended that empanelment did not create a vested right to appointment and that the Government’s cancellation rested on the PCCF’s justified findings; respondents argued that no inquiry had been held, that only reservation compliance was cited as the reason for cancellation and that the irregularities were curable without annulling the entire list.

The Supreme Court reviewed precedents including Shankarsan Dash (that notification ordinarily amounted to an invitation to apply), Jitendra Kumar, K. Shyam Kumar and Sachin Kumar, and analysed whether the successor Government’s choice of remedies—cancel entirely rather than rectify or segregate tainted candidates—was disproportionate. The Court noted that the PCCF’s note disclosed a “coat of discernible taint suggesting impropriety and bias, if not corruption,” and concluded that, on the facts, the decision to cancel was within the State’s bonafide discretion and not liable to be set aside by judicial review. The Court, however, urged framing recruitment rules or placing administrative instructions in the public domain to avoid future litigation. The appeal was allowed without costs; pending applications stood disposed of and the State was permitted to proceed with fresh recruitment forthwith.

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.2350 OF 2025 (2025 INSC 334) Case Title: STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. v. ARABINDA RABHA & ORS. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Senior Counsel and Additional Advocate General (Assam) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Manish Goswami, Senior Counsel