STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. versus ARABINDA RABHA & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 3 S.C.R. 598 · Decided: 06-03-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPANKAR DATTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.