Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1744
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT KOHIMA BENCH
YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.
Shri T. Akon Phom - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Nagaland And Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 128 Of 2025
Decided On : 16-10-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Tongpok Pongener, Keti Imchen,Vikehienuo Vimerha, Asenla S Lkr, Akum Aier, Laknyei Phom, Akum Jamir
For the Respondent:V. Suokhrie, Add. Advocate General
Changes to recruitment procedures after the advertisement's issue violate principles of fairness and transparency, and can lead to quashing of subsequent notifications.
Headnote:(A) Nagaland Excise Service (Revised) Rules, 1999 - Rule 5 - Recruitment process - Quashing of impugned Notification regarding constitution of Departmental Recruitment Board and introduction of written test after commencement of recruitment violated established principles. (Paras 10, 30, 36)
(B) Fairness in recruitment - Requirements of transparency and adherence to specified criteria must be maintained to avoid the appearance of arbitrariness and prejudice against candidates. (Paras 29, 31)
Facts of the case:
16 petitioners challenged the constitution of the Recruitment Board and introduction of an unexpected written test, citing deviations from previously established recruitment processes.
Issues: Whether changes in recruitment procedures can be introduced post-announcement of advertisements; whether the constitution of the Recruitment Board complied with established rules.
Findings of Court:
The impugned Corrigendum introducing a written test was quashed due to its late introduction and violations of recruitment rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that modifications to recruitment rules after commencement are impermissible and that the authority to prescribe a recruitment method lies with the government, not the Recruitment Board.
Result: Petition allowed; impugned Corrigendum quashed with directives on compliance to original advertisement.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenge recruitment and composition of drb. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7) |
| 2. concerns raised about procedural fairness in recruitment. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. rules can't change during ongoing recruitment process. (Para 12 , 18) |
| 4. arguments for legality of drb and written test validity. (Para 14 , 19) |
| 5. court's analysis on recruitment rules and methodology. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. reiteration of established law against mid-recruitment changes. (Para 26 , 27 , 33) |
| 7. court orders quashing alterations and mandates compliance with rules. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
JUDGMENT & ORDER :
YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.
The petitioners numbering 16 in total have come before this Court praying for: (i) quashing and setting aside the impugned Notification No.EX-1/ESST/1/2022 dated 28th April, 2025 notifying constitution of the Departmental Recruitment Board (DRB for short), (ii) for quashing and setting aside the Impugned Corrigendum No. EX-1.ESST/1/2022/642-43 dated 04.06.2025, by which a written test in the interview process was included midway through the recruitment process, (iii)for quashing and setting aside the physical test being conducted allegedly in contravention of Memorandum No. EX-5/3/2000/6036 dated 19.07.2016 and also for (iv) a direction to the State respondents to re-constitute the Departmental Recruitment Board in consonance with the service rules and to conduct the recruitment process strictly in terms of the Advertisement No. Ex.1/ESTT/1/2022 dated 07.04.2025 and also (v) for a direction to re- conduct physical test in terms of the standard laid down in the Office Memorandum No. EX.5/3/2000/6036 dated 19.07.2016.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Tongpok Pongener and Additional A.G, Ms. V. Suokhrie, for the State respondents.
3. The case of the petitioners’ is that by an Advertisement No. EX.1/ESST/1/2022 dated 07.04.2025, applications were invited for filling up 40(forty) posts of Excise Constables. The Advertisement laid down detailed Criteria and requirements, and at Sl. No. 4 of the Advertisement regarding the recruitment process, it was stated specifically that the recruitment process shall consist of: (a) Physical Test. (b) Suitability Test (Viva-Voce). It is stated that in previous Advertisements on 10.07.2018 and 19.08.2019 also the recruitment process for Excise Constable involved only physical test and suitability test.
4. It is further stated that the Office of the Commissioner Excise and Prohibition had brought out an Office Memorandum No. EX-5/3/2000/6036 dated 19.07.2016 for field staff wherein, it was stated that those candidates who meet the prescribed Physical Standards as specified will be put through the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) as indicated:-
| Males | Females | |
| (a) 100 Meters race | In 16 seconds | In 18 seconds |
| (b) 800 Meters race | In 3 minutes | In 4 minutes |
| (c) Long Jump | 3.5 Metres (3 chances) | 2.75 Meters (3 chances) |
| (d) High Jump | 1.05 Meters (3 chances | 0.90 Meters (3 chances) |
| (e) Shot Put (7.26 Kgs.) | 4.5 Meters (3 chances) | _________ |
5. The petitioners also stated that the impugned notification No. EX.1/ESTT/1/2022 dated 23.04.2025 constituted a 6 (six) member Board to be the Departmental Recruitment Board (DRB for short), which consist of the following:
1. Commissioner of Excise : Chairman
2. Representative of the P&AR : Member
3. Representative of the Law & Justice Deptt : Member
4. Representative of the Finance Department : Member
5. Representative of the Administrative Deptt : Member
6. Addl. Commissioner of Excise :Member Secretary
6. It is the submission of the petitioner that this DRB constituted by Order dated 23.04.2025, is in contravention of Rule 7(1) of the Nagaland Excise Service (Revised)Rules 1999, (referred to as the Rules for short). It is stated that as per Rule 7(1) of the Rules the DRB has to consist of the Head of Department as Chairman, with representative from Administrative Department, and representative from P&AR Department as members and an Officer nominated by Head of Department from th
