Supreme Court: Selection Based Solely on Interview Marks Raises Presumption of Arbitrariness and Favouritism

The Supreme Court has ruled that recruitment processes based solely on interview marks raise a reasonable presumption of arbitrariness and favoritism, emphasising the need for a written exam and clear recruitment rules to ensure transparency.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan in State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors. upheld the 2016 decision of the Assam government to cancel the recruitment list for 104 Constables in the Assam Forest Protection Force (AFPF). The Court found that the cancellation was justified due to irregularities, including skewed district representation, reservation policy violations, and the lack of a structured selection process.

“Selection based entirely on interviews allows room for misuse and favouritism. It is desirable to have recruitment rules and a written exam to ensure transparency and fairness,” the Court observed.

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

1. Unregulated Interview-Based Selection Can Be Misused: The Court noted that selection without a written exam or structured recruitment rules creates an environment ripe for bias and favoritism. The government rightly presumed arbitrariness in the process, which justified the cancellation of the recruitment list.
2. Need for Recruitment Rules and Transparency: The Court recommended framing clear recruitment rules and making administrative instructions publicly available to ensure fairness. It warned that conducting selections without a written exam or statutorily prescribed standards often leads to legal challenges.
3. Reservation Policy and Representation Concerns: The select list heavily favored certain districts, with 64 out of 104 candidates from just two districts, while 16 districts with 52% of the state’s population had no representation. Meritorious reserved-category candidates were wrongly counted under reserved quotas instead of the general category, violating reservation policies.
4. High Court’s Overreach and Judicial Review Limitations: The Gauhati High Court had reinstated the recruitment list, arguing that irregularities could be corrected without canceling the entire process. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by substituting its own decision for that of the government.

The Supreme Court emphasised that policy decisions regarding recruitment cancellations should be taken in good faith to ensure diversity and inclusivity.

“Fostering diversity and inclusivity in public service, ensuring fair representation from all districts, including backward areas, should be a priority for all state governments in the Northeast,” the Court stated.

Case Background

• The 2014 recruitment process for 104 Constables in the AFPF was initiated under the then Congress-led government.
• In 2016, following a change in government, a review of the selection process highlighted anomalies in district representation and reservation compliance.
• The BJP-led Assam government canceled the select list in July 2016, citing these violations.
• A fresh recruitment process was announced in April 2017.

Supreme Court’s Final Decision

• The Court upheld the Assam government’s decision to cancel the selection list.
• It allowed the government to conduct a fresh recruitment process in accordance with the law.
• Candidates from the earlier selection list will be granted age relaxation and minor concessions in the new recruitment process due to the time lapse.