Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 699
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
The State of Assam – Appellant
VERSUS
Shalini Khan & Ors. Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 7443-7447 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 21025-21029 of 2025)
Decided On : 12-05-2026
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Recruitment and Selection
Act Referred
ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PROCEDURE AND CONDUCT OF BUSINESS RULES: R.77
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.309
Headnote
(B) Judicial Discretion - Equitable consideration - Extraordinary jurisdiction - Where the recruiting agency admits to fault in publishing erroneous answer keys and the candidates concerned remain entirely blameless, judicial intervention is justified to prevent manifest injustice despite a technical failure to meet mandatory preliminary qualifying standards. (Paras 11, 13)
Facts of the case:
Following the publication of initial examination results, the recruiting agency discovered discrepancies in the official answer keys and performed a re-verification. This process resulted in a scenario where some candidates who were initially marked qualified fell below the cutoff, while others were newly qualified. The candidates who were initially declared successful were allowed to proceed to the main examination and interview stages by the agency. These candidates successfully cleared the subsequent stages. Writ petitions were filed challenging the process, leading to the High Court directing the appointment of these individuals based on equity.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that while the rules mandate passing the preliminary examination, enforcing a strict exclusion of candidates based on a failed screening test would be inequitable given the established merit of the candidates in the main examination and the admitted administrative lapse by the recruiting body.
Issues: Whether candidates who fail to secure the prescribed minimum marks in a preliminary screening test can be admitted to final service based on their performance in subsequent stages, and whether the court should grant relief despite a breach of statutory procedural rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that when the administrative body is solely responsible for procedural errors and the candidates exhibit genuine merit in the final selection stages, equitable considerations permit the court to grant relief to avoid injustice. This relief is strictly contextual and does not create an interpretation of the recruitment rules that could be invoked as a future precedent.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Debojit Borkakati, AOR Mr. Irfan Hasieb, Adv. Mr. Vijay Deora, Adv. Mr. Aditya Agarwal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Manish Goswami, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Shukla, Adv. Mr. Brahmjeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Parthiv Goswami, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pracheta Kar, AOR Ms. Atiga Singh, Adv. Mr. Chetan Garg, Adv. Mr. Shaveer Ahmed, AOR
ORDER
1) Leave granted.
2) The present appeals arises out of the order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the Gauhati High Court (hereinafter referred to as, ‘The High Court’) in Writ Appeal Nos. 361, 363, 364, 371, and 373 of 2023. The core grievance of the appellantState in this matter is that the High Court allowed the appeals preferred by the private respondents, directing the Assam Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as, ‘The APSC’) to declare their results, and further directed the appellant-State to accord them appointments.
3) The appellant contends that these directions were in complete non-observance of Rule 11 of the Assam Public Services (Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1989 Rules’).
4) It is not in dispute that the private respondents namely Shalini Khan, Saswati Das, Manish Baruah, Girbani Deka and Vidisha Bodo who were unsuccessful in clearing the Preliminary Examination of the Combined Competitive Examination; pursuant to an interim order dated 30.07.2019 passed by a Learned Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3328/2019 and other connected petitions, were permitted to participate in the Main Examination. Subsequently, the private respondents successfully cleared the Main Exam and the interview stage also. The present appeals have been preferred, inter alia, seeking to draw this Court’s attention to the true statutory intent of Rule 11 of the 1989 Rules and to seek interference with respect to the judgment under challenge.
5) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts as involved in these present appeals are that, the APSC issued Advertisement No. 9/2018 on 17.05.2018, inviting applications to fill 165 posts across different services. Pursuant to Rule 11 , a preliminary examination as required was held on 30.12.2018. On 13.03.2019, the APSC published the results, declaring 3,361 candidates as qualified for further participation in Main Examination. Later, on 20.03.2019, the answer keys for the Preliminary Examination were uploaded on the APSC website. Following the objections by several unsuccessful candidates, the APSC, suo motu, revisited the results and declared 406 additional candidates, along with two of the PWD (OH) category, as qualified. This was notified by the APSC via a press release dated 20.05.2019, specifying that despite due caution, certain discrepancies had crept into the answer keys. Consequently, the APSC revised the erroneous answer keys with the assistance of domain experts and uploaded the revised answer key on the APSC website on 09.05.2019. The short-listed candidates across both the lists i.e., original list and list of additional qualified candidates after revision of the answer keys, were required to fulfill the requisite formalities to appear for the Main examination.
6) In the meantime, Respondent No. 1, an unsuccessful candidate filed Writ Petition No. 3341/2019 before the Gauhati High Court raising a grievance that she was not awarded full marks for certain answers, therefore, deprived the opportunity to secure the prescribed cut-off marks, henceforth, directions were sought. Apart from that, 20 other writ petitions were also filed raising the grievance about the correctness of the answer key subsequently published by the ASPC. It is not out of place to mention, vide order dated 30.07.2019 in WP(C) NO. 3328/2019 and other connected petitions, the High Court permitted the private respondents to participate in Main Examination while restraining APSC from declaring the final result, which would be subject to outcome of the writ petitions. By an order dated 23.10.2019, the Single Judge of the High Court had directed the APSC to clarify, by filing an affidavit, that amongst the 3361 candidates who were initially declared successful by the APSC on 13.03.2019 to appear in Main Examination, and in view of revised answer key how many candidates had actually not qualified for the Main Examination. In the affidavit fil
