Gauhati HC Sets Aside N.F. Railway's Cancellation of Chief Law Assistant Exam, Orders Process Completed Within Three Months
The Gauhati High Court held that cancelling an entire departmental promotion exam over suspicion about two candidates was disproportionate and directed N.F. Railway to segregate those candidates and complete the selection within three months.
A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, on 26 May 2026 set aside a decision by the Northeast Frontier (N.F.) Railway to cancel the entire selection process for the post of Chief Law Assistant under the 60% Departmental Promotion quota. The court found that the cancellation — triggered by suspicion over the handwriting and answer-paper alignment of just two candidates — failed the Wednesbury reasonableness test and the proportionality standard. The bench directed the Railway to segregate the two suspect candidates, complete the examination process for the remaining candidates, and bring the selection to a final conclusion preferably within three months. The judgment also sets aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, which had upheld the cancellation.
The Selection Process and Its Cancellation
N.F. Railway issued an advertisement on 26 May 2022 inviting departmental candidates to appear for the post of Chief Law Assistant under the 60% Departmental Promotion quota. The written test was conducted on 15 September 2022. The five petitioners — Shri Ranjeet Kumar, Shri Sonu Kumar Pandey, Shri Shailendra Kumar, Smti. Chumki Mitra Deb, and Shri Mukesh Kumar Jha — were among those declared successful. The list of successful candidates was published on 24 November 2022, and a viva voce test was scheduled for 8 December 2022.
Before the viva voce could be held, a candidate named Biswajit Dey filed Original Application No.265/2022 before the Central Administrative Tribunal objecting that the answer keys had not been published before the declaration of results. The viva voce was postponed. Answer keys were released on 7 December 2022 and revised on 20 January 2023. The earlier written examination result was cancelled and re-evaluation was ordered.
The Tribunal, while dealing with Biswajit Dey's application, permitted the Railway to proceed with the viva voce for other Chief Law Assistant posts, keeping one post vacant pending re-evaluation. Even after re-evaluation was completed, the Railway initially planned to continue the process. Then, on 5 February 2024, the Railway cancelled the entire selection process, citing procedural irregularities.
The petitioners challenged this cancellation before the Tribunal in Original Application No.040/41/2024. The Tribunal dismissed their application by its judgment dated 8 December 2025, accepting the Railway's reasoning that the cancellation was a conscious decision taken to preserve the sanctity of the recruitment process. The petitioners then moved the Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No.516 of 2026.
What the Railway's Own Internal Note Revealed
The Division Bench examined the internal departmental note that the Railway had placed before the Tribunal. That note made several admissions that proved significant to the court's analysis.
The Railway admitted that no defect or irregularity had been found in the question paper or in the conduct of the written test itself. The defects that were noticed related only to the evaluation stage: the answer key had not been published before evaluation, wrong answer keys had been used, and there had been wrong evaluation. These defects, the note acknowledged, were the reason a proposal for cancellation had initially been floated. However, on the approval of the General Manager, the requirement of cancellation was avoided and re-evaluation was undertaken instead. The Railway's own note stated that re-evaluation was permitted to prevent cancellation on minor irregularities, which would have nullified the sincere attempts of candidates in the written examination.
Critically, the Railway also admitted that no complaint of unfair means during the written test had been received. The only remaining concern was a suspicion raised by the Re-evaluating Officer about variation in the handwriting of two candidates and a difference in alignment between the original and duplicate answer papers of those two candidates. The Railway's position was that this defect was not likely to be rectified even on re-evaluation, and on that basis the competent authority took the final decision to cancel the entire examination.
Petitioners' Arguments Before the High Court
Mr. H.K. Das, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners assisted by Mr. N.K. Sarma, Advocate, argued that once all other defects — wrong answer keys, non-publication of answer keys, and overwriting issues — had been cured by re-evaluation, as was evident from the Railway's own internal notes, cancelling the entire process merely on suspicion about two candidates was arbitrary. He submitted that it amounted to a waste of public money and denied the petitioners and other similarly situated candidates a fair chance at a promotion they had earned through their own effort.
Mr. Das further argued that before the cancellation was ordered, the petitioners were not even given notice. He relied on the principle articulated by the Supreme Court in matters of selection: that the correct approach is to “weed out the tainted candidates” rather than cancel the entire examination. He also submitted that the Tribunal's order was non-speaking and cryptic and could not be sustained on that ground alone.
Mr. H. Gupta, Central Government Counsel, appeared for all the respondents.
The Legal Framework Applied by the Bench
Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar, writing for the Division Bench, surveyed the settled position on examination cancellations. The bench drew on Sachin Kumar & Ors. v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) & Ors. :: (2021) 4 SCC 631, which holds that a decision to cancel an examination must turn on whether the irregularity has taken place at a systemic level so as to vitiate the sanctity of the entire process. The Supreme Court in that case emphasised that where it is possible to segregate persons who have indulged in malpractices, a recruiting body that fails to do so acts unfairly to diligent applicants. Treating unequals equally in such a situation would itself be contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution.
The bench also referred to Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha & Ors. :: (1970) 1 SCC 648; Anamica Mishra & Ors. v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad & Ors. :: (1990) Supp SCC 692; Union of India & Ors. v. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu & Anr. :: (2003) 7 SCC 285; and Inderpreet Singh Kahlon & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. :: (2006) 11 SCC 356, all of which voice similar views.
The bench placed particular weight on Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. :: (2024) 9 SCC 743, where a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court reiterated that cancellation of an examination is justified only where the sanctity of the examination is found to be compromised at a systemic level, and that a court can direct or approve cancellation only if it is not possible to separate tainted candidates from untainted ones.
How the Bench Reasoned Against the Cancellation
Applying these principles to the facts, the Division Bench found the Railway's decision unsustainable. The written examination had been held and results declared. The only defect that survived re-evaluation was a suspicion about two candidates based on handwriting variation and alignment differences in their answer papers. The bench observed that those two candidates could easily have been segregated from the rest, and the examination process should have been taken to its logical conclusion for the remaining candidates.
The bench held that the decision to cancel the entire long-drawn examination process did not pass the Wednesbury principles or the proportionality test. The decision of the Railway and the Tribunal's endorsement of it were found to be neither fair, reasonable, well-balanced, nor harmonious.
The bench also took note of the fact that, in the period since the cancellation, no fresh process had been undertaken to fill the posts of Chief Law Assistant through the departmental promotion quota. This meant the posts had remained vacant throughout.
On the Tribunal's order specifically, the bench agreed with the petitioners' submission that the Tribunal had accepted the Railway's reasoning without adequate independent analysis, and the court disagreed with the Tribunal's conclusion.
Order
The Division Bench set aside the judgment dated 8 December 2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in Original Application No.040/41/2024. It directed the respondents — the Union of India, the General Manager of N.F. Railway, and the other Railway officials — to complete the process of examination after segregating the cases of the two suspect candidates, and to take the process to a logical conclusion within a reasonable period, preferably within three months. WP(C) No.516 of 2026 was allowed to that extent.