A section on intending candidates has alleged procedural irregularities in the recruitment of 46 Excise constables under Nagaland Excise department
Share
DIMAPUR — A section of intending candidates has alleged procedural irregularities in the recruitment of 46 Excise constables by the Departmental Recruitment Board (DRB), Excise department.
In a press release, the candidates stated that the original recruitment advertisement dated April 7, 2025, announced 40 posts (later revised to 46 via an addendum dated May 14, 2025), and outlined a two-tier selection process—Physical Test and Viva Voce.
However, after an RTI filed on May 17, 2025, the DRB issued a corrigendum dated June 4, 2025, introducing a written test component.
The intending candidates claimed the change was made without proper procedure and showed disregard for service rules and legal precedents. They questioned the transparency and fairness of the process, citing the DRB's initial plan to use only subjective viva voce interviews.
Also read: 9,904 candidates vie for 46 Excise constable posts in Nagaland
Additionally, an RTI response on July 4, 2025, disclosed the selection process breakdown: Physical Test (qualifying), Written Test (100 marks), and Viva Voce (12 marks).
They pointed out the discrepancy in the department’s claim about viva voce marks. The viva voce actually constitutes 10.71% of the total 112 marks, not 12%. This inconsistency is further highlighted by differences from previous recruitment drives in 2018 and 2019, which had only two stages: Physical Test and Viva Voce, the complainants stated.
The candidates expressed concerns that the sudden addition of a written test unfairly favoured better-educated applicants over those with lower qualifications (Class 8 minimum). They also questioned the omission of physical fitness marks, arguing it's unjustified for a constable role and deviates from established norms and past practices.
The candidates claimed the Departmental Recruitment Board was formed on April 23, 2025, after the recruitment advertisement, violating a directive that required the board's constitution before announcing vacancies.
Read more:
They also alleged the DRB's composition breached Rule 7 of the Nagaland Excise Service Rules, 1999, rendering any recruitment process conducted by it potentially void and illegal.
The candidates argued that the physical test should have adhered to the July 19, 2016, memorandum outlining physical and medical standards. They claimed deviations would flaw the process. Although the DRB extended the selection process by a day to accommodate remote area candidates, this didn't resolve concerns over arbitrary and non-transparent changes to recruitment criteria.
Further, they requested that the recruitment process follow the Excise Service Rules, 1999, strictly, with suitable weightage for physical tests and viva voce as per past practices and Supreme Court guidelines, which cap interview marks at 12% of the total.
Meanwhile, the candidates also disclosed that they had submitted a representation to the Commissioner of Excise & Prohibition on July 9, reiterating “our concerns and seeking redress.”