Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Order Date: 12‑05‑2026
Case Overview
- Parties: appellant – State of Assam; respondents – Shalini Khan, Girbani Deka and other private candidates.
- Procedural History: The dispute originated from the Gauhati High Court order dated 11‑12‑2024 (Writ Appeals Nos. 361, 363, 364, 371, 373 of 2023) which directed the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) to declare results of the Combined Competitive Examination (CCE) 2018 and to appoint the private respondents despite their failure to clear the Preliminary Examination under Rule 11 of the Assam Public Services (Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1989.
- Exam Background: APSC advertised 165 posts (Advertisement No. 9/2018) on 17‑05‑2018. Preliminary Examination held on 30‑12‑2018; initial results (13‑03‑2019) declared 3,361 candidates qualified. After objections, APSC revised answer keys (press release 20‑05‑2019) and, on 09‑05‑2019, uploaded corrected keys, adding 406 candidates as qualified. Additionally, 98 candidates originally declared qualified were found, after key revision, to have fallen below the cut‑off but were nevertheless allowed to sit for the Main Examination.
- High Court Intervention: A writ petition (WP(C) 3328/2019) filed by an unsuccessful candidate led the High Court (order dated 30‑07‑2019) to permit the 98 candidates to appear in the Main Examination while restraining APSC from declaring final results. Subsequent orders (23‑10‑2019, 21‑08‑2023) required APSC to file affidavits clarifying the number of candidates affected and eventually dismissed the writ petitions.
- APSC Minutes: Multiple commission meetings (30‑04‑2019, 25‑01‑2021, 18‑03‑2021, 19‑10‑2023) recorded the commission’s reasoning:
- No upward revision of preliminary cut‑off marks.
- 406 additional candidates qualified after corrected keys.
- The 98 candidates, though below cut‑off post‑revision, were allowed to appear in the Main Examination to avoid cancelling the original notification and because the preliminary stage is merely a screening test.
- The commission declared this a one‑time decision, not to be treated as precedent.
- Legal Issues: Whether allowing candidates who failed the revised preliminary exam to sit for the Main Examination violates Rule 11 of the 1989 Rules, which mandates that only candidates who obtain the minimum qualifying marks in the Preliminary Examination may be admitted to the Main Examination.
- Supreme Court Reasoning: The Court noted that the Preliminary Examination is a screening test; merit is determined solely by performance in the Main Examination (written and interview). It observed that the High Court had applied equitable considerations, allowing meritorious candidates to retain their appointments. The Court clarified that its decision does not set a binding precedent on the interpretation of Rule 11 and left the scope of that rule to be determined in future cases.
Final Outcome
- The Supreme Court dismissed the State of Assam’s appeals (Civil Appeals Nos. 7443‑7447/2026).
- The order of the Gauhati High Court directing APSC to declare the results and to appoint the private respondents is to be implemented within one month.
- The private respondents are entitled to the benefits (appointments) as granted by the High Court.
- All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
Topics: Legal Precedent, Public Service Recruitment