2025 Supreme(SC) 468

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MANMOHAN, DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.
State Of Assam & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Arabinda Rabha & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.2350 of 2025
Decided on : 07-03-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Appointment – Normally, it is not for courts to interfere unless process smacks of mala fides – However, right to be considered for public employment being a Fundamental Right, it would be safe and prudent to have recruitment rules to govern process of selection so that best possible talent is appointed in public service.
(2) Appointment – Conducting recruitment processes in terms of executive orders and in absence of statutorily prescribed standards, more often than not, invite avoidable litigation producing undesirable results – Fostering diversity and inclusivity in public service, ensuring that there is representation from almost all districts including from hills and historically backward classes without, however, compromising merit should be commitment of all Governments of States in North-Eastern part of country.
(3) Any decision taken not to appoint despite there being vacancies and a valid select list, is in nature of a policy decision – Whether, and to what extent, any relief should be granted, must depend on facts of each case.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Appointment – Factors of “when”, “which”, “what”, “who” and “how” that are associated with a recruitment/selection process is prerogative of recruiting authority and selectors; however, at the same time, process has to be conducted consistent with statutory provisions governing the same as well as principles of absolute fairness and complete non-arbitrariness – Though law does not postulate a fetter on authority of employer-State and it is within domain of Government when to initiate a process of recruitment for public employment, either according to recruitment rules or even in absence thereof, it is for Government of day to decide in which manner it proposes to conduct selection, what would be various stages candidates aspiring for appointment have to pass through in order to be placed in select list, who would be selectors, and how weightage is to be given to each of 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 slightest hint of any bias or favouritism or nepotism – Normally, it is not for courts to interfere unless process smacks of mala fides – However, right to be considered for public employment being a Fundamental Right, it would be safe and prudent to have recruitment rules to govern process of selection so that best possible talent is appointed in public service – Assessing merit of candidates aspiring for public employment on the basis of a prescribed standard would not only provide a level playing field for each of them, excellence of any institution to which appointment is to be made would depend directly on proficiency of its members/staff and that would, in turn, depend on quality and merit of those who offer themselves for selection and ultimately get selected, necessitating selection to be conducted without any hidden taint or masked mala fides. (Para 35)

(B) Service Law – Appointment – Conducting recruitment processes in terms of executive orders and in absence of statutorily prescribed standards, more often than not, invite avoidable litigation producing undesirable results – Fostering diversity and inclusivity in public service, ensuring that there is representation from almost all districts including from hills and historically backward classes without, however, compromising merit should be commitment of all Governments of States in North-Eastern part of country – Decision to cancel select list has marks etched to proceed towards such commitment and achieving greater good – Such a noble initiative was, by no means, open to scrutiny by judicial review court – Two distinct conclusions in given set of facts being clearly possible and successor Government having taken a view, which by no means was unreasonable and/or implausible, writ court instead of substituting its view and/or imposing its own decision as to what would have been and was correct option that Government should have preferred in lieu of other option actually preferred, ought to have stayed at a distance instead – Process had a coat of discernible taint suggesting impropriety and bias – Impugned decision of cancellation was neither unjustified nor was one which could be upset by applying Doctrines of either Wednesbury Unreasonableness or Proportionality – Any decision taken not to appoint despite there being vacancies and a valid select list, is in nature of a policy decision – Whether, and to what extent, any relief should be granted, must depend on facts of each case – Appellants granted liberty to take forward process of filling up 104 Constables in AFPF, in accordance with law, by publishing fresh advertisement. (Paras 36, 39, 42, 52, 54 and 63)

Facts of the case:

Broad question of law arising for decision is:

(A) Whether High Court was justified in its interference with decision to cancel select list and to require process to be carried forward in manner directed by it?

(B) Whether decision of appellants to cancel select list infringed legal rights of respondents for which a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution could be maintained?

Findings of Court:

Respondents, if they choose to apply in pursuance of such advertisement, shall be considered for appointment waiving their age bar as well as waiving insignificant minor deficiencies in physical measurement as well as insignificant requirements of PET, considering that almost a decade has passed since the earlier process was initiated. This concession is granted in exercise of our power conferred by Article 142 of Constitution. In addition, it shall be open to PCCF to grant such further relaxation to the respondents as deemed fit and proper.

Result : Civil Appeal allowed.