- Case
- THE STATE OF ASSAM v. ARABINDA RABHA (Supreme Court of India, 07-03-2025)
- Law
- Constitution of India.
Article 226 of the Constitution: The judgment discusses whether the decision to cancel the select list infringed the legal rights of the respondents for which a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be maintained. The court ultimately finds that the respondents' legal rights were not infringed because of the absence of grant of legitimacy to the select list by way of an approval from the Government.
Article 162 of the Constitution: The judgment mentions that proceeding to conduct a process of recruitment without there being recruitment rules but based on executive instructions under Article 162 of the Constitution is not open to invalidation only on such ground.
Article 142 of the Constitution: The judgment mentions that the concession granted to the 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 the PET, considering that almost a decade has passed since the earlier process was initiated. This concession is granted in exercise of the court's power conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution.
Article 14 of the Constitution: The judgment references Article 14 in the context of equality of opportunity and fairness in the selection process. It states that where recruitment to public employment stands vitiated as a consequence of systemic fraud or irregularities, the entire process becomes illegitimate. It also states that to treat the innocent and the wrongdoers equally by subjecting the former to the consequence of the cancellation of the entire process would be contrary to Article 14 because unequals would then be treated equally.
Article 16(1) of the Constitution: The judgment references Article 16(1) in the context of equality of opportunity. It states that a fair and reasonable process of selection to posts subject to the norm of equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) is a constitutional requirement.
General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the doctrine of Wednesbury unreasonableness and the doctrine of proportionality in relation to the decision to cancel the select list. It also discusses the concept of legitimate expectation and the right to be considered for public employment. The judgment emphasizes the importance of fairness, transparency, and non-arbitrariness in the recruitment process. It also touches upon the principle of *bona fide* action on the part of the State. The judgment also discusses the concept of *mala fides* in the context of the selection process.
