Gauhati High Court upholds written test for Excise constable recruitment, allowing Nagaland government to complete selection process
Share
DIMAPUR — The Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court has upheld the Excise department's decision to introduce a written examination in the recruitment process for 46 Excise constables and allowed the state government to complete the selection process.
A division bench comprising Justice Nelson Sailo and Justice Pranjal Das, in a judgement delivered on June 23, allowed an appeal filed by the state of Nagaland and set aside an October 2025 order of a single judge that had quashed the written test.
The recruitment process began with an advertisement issued on April 7, 2025 for 40 Excise constable posts. The advertisement stated that candidates would undergo a physical test and viva voce. Six additional posts were later added, taking the total number of vacancies to 46.
On June 4, 2025, the Excise department issued a corrigendum introducing a written examination in addition to the physical test and interview.
Candidates who challenged the move argued that the written test was not part of the original advertisement and could not be introduced after the recruitment process had already begun.
The single judge accepted that argument and, on October 16, 2025, quashed the corrigendum and the physical test conducted thereafter. The state government subsequently challenged that decision before the division bench.
Also read: Court quashes written test in Nagaland Excise Constable recruitment
DNSU seeks fresh recruitment for 46 Excise constable posts
Allowing the appeal, the division bench held that the Nagaland Excise Service (Revised) Rules, 1999 require recruitment to Excise constable posts through “competitive examination/selection” but do not prescribe in detail how the selection process must be conducted.
The bench noted that more than 10,000 candidates had applied for the 46 posts and held that, in the absence of any rule prohibiting it, requiring candidates who qualified the physical test to undergo a written examination as a screening mechanism could not be considered arbitrary.
The court also noted that the corrigendum introducing the written test was issued on June 4, 2025, before the physical tests were conducted between July 14 and July 24, 2025, and that the information was publicised through official notifications and local newspapers.
It further observed that, although the petitioners had submitted a representation objecting to the written test, all but one participated in the physical test and later proceeded to take part in the written examination after no interim stay was granted by the court.
The division bench also disagreed with the single judge's reliance on a July 19, 2016 memorandum while assessing the physical test. It noted the state's contention that the memorandum had neither been formally approved by the government nor followed in previous Excise constable recruitment exercises, and held that the recruitment process could not be invalidated on that basis.
Holding that the introduction of the written examination was neither arbitrary nor contrary to the recruitment rules, the court set aside the single-judge order and directed the state authorities to complete the recruitment process initiated through the April 7, 2025 advertisement.