Cancelling Entire Examination Doesn’t Pass Muster Of Wednesbury Principles: Gauhati High Court In Chief Law Assistant Recruitment Case

The High Court was considering a writ petition challenging the judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioners challenging the decision of the respondents/Department in cancelling the entire examination for filling up the post of Chief Law Assistant under 60% Departmental Promotion quota was dismissed.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury held, “If we examine the decision of the authorities of cancelling the entire long-drawn process of examination, it does not pass the muster of Wednesbury principles or the proportionality test. The decision of the respondents and of the Tribunal does not appear to be fair, reasonable, well-balanced or harmonious.”

Senior Advocate H.K. Das represented the Petitioner while Central Government Counsel H. Gupta represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

An advertisement was issued in 2022 for filling up the post of Chief Law Assistant under 60% Departmental Promotion quota. The written test was held in which the petitioners were declared successful. The successful candidates had to appear in the viva voce test, however, the same was postponed because in the meantime, one of the candidates had raised an objection that the answer keys had not been published before the declaration of the result. He had filed an Original Application before the Tribunal. The earlier result of the written examination was cancelled and it was directed that the result would be published only after re-evaluation. The Tribunal, while considering the objection had allowed the Railways/respondents to proceed with the viva voce for other post of Chief Law Assistant keeping one post vacant.

Even after re-evaluation, the Railways initially planned to continue with the process but suddenly on February 2, 2024, the entire selection process was cancelled, citing procedural irregularities. This was questioned by the petitioners. The Tribunal looked at the entire process which was delineated in the note put up before it on behalf of the Railways and held that there was no reason to interfere with the decision as the all steps had been taken by the respondents to ensure transparency in the recruitment process.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the written examination was held and the results were declared. However, the results had to be re-evaluated as one of the candidates had objected that the answer keys were not published before the declaration of the results. The Bench noted that this led to the reevaluation, and the defect had been completely remedied.

The Bench noted that the admitted case of the respondents was that there was some suspicion with respect to two candidates. The Bench was of the view that the petitioners had rightly argued that the case of those two candidates could easily have been segregated from the rest of the candidates, and the examination process should have been taken to a logical/final conclusion.

Thus, setting aside the impugned judgment and allowing the petition, the Bench directed the respondents to complete the process of examination, after segregating the cases of the two candidates. The Bench further directed that the process be brought to a logical conclusion, preferably within 3 months.

Cause Title: Shri Ranjeet Kumar v. The Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2026:GAU-AS:7343-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate H.K. Das, Advocate N.K. Sarma

Respondent: Central Government Counsel H. Gupta

Click here to read/download Order