Morung Express NewsDimapur | June 24The Kohima Bench of the Gauhati High Court has cleared the way for the Nagaland Excise & Prohibition Department to complete its recruitment drive for Excise Constables, setting aside a previous Single Judge order that had quashed the department's decision to introduce a written test.A Division Bench comprising Justice Nelson Sailo and Justice Pranjal Das, in a judgment delivered on June 23, allowed a writ appeal filed by the State Government against the October 16, 2025 judgment which had invalidated a corrigendum introducing a written test and directed the department to proceed strictly in terms of the original advertisement.Case genesisThe recruitment process began with an advertisement issued on April 7, 2025 for 40 Excise Constable posts, later increased to 46 through an addendum. The advertisement prescribed a physical test and suitability test (viva-voce).However, a corrigendum issued on June 4, 2025 introduced a written examination as part of the selection process.A group of candidates challenged the decision, contending that the Departmental Recruitment Board could not alter the recruitment criteria after the process had commenced and that the written examination was not contemplated under the original advertisement.In its October 16 judgment, the Single Judge had quashed the corrigendum introducing the written test and directed the authorities to proceed strictly as per the original advertisement. The Court further held that any inclusion of a written test would require a fresh advertisement and a fresh recruitment process in accordance with law.Key contentionsThe central issue before the Division Bench was whether the Departmental Recruitment Board had the authority to introduce a written examination after the recruitment process had commenced.Counsel for the writ petitioners argued that the Nagaland Excise Service (Revised) Rules, 1999 do not expressly prescribe a written test for direct recruitment to the post of Excise Constable and that the recruitment board was “not empowered to change the Rules of the game by incorporating written test” midway through the process.The State, however, contended that the 1999 Rules do not prescribe a detailed procedure for conducting direct recruitment through “competitive examination/selection.”It submitted that more than 10,000 candidates had applied for the 46 vacancies and that the written test was introduced for “better screening and selection of the candidates” and to ensure transparency and fairness in the recruitment process.Division Bench conclusionAgreeing with the State's contention, the Division Bench observed that the 1999 Rules provide for recruitment through “competitive examination/selection” but do not lay down a detailed procedure for conducting the selection process.In such circumstances, the Court held that the Departmental Recruitment Board was empowered to devise an appropriate method for identifying suitable candidates.Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Tej Prakash Pathak v Rajasthan High Court, the Bench observed that “a degree of discretion is necessary to be left to the employer to devise its method/procedure to select a candidate most suitable for the post.”The Court further noted that more than 10,000 candidates had applied for only 46 vacancies and held that screening candidates through a written examination after the physical test could not be regarded as arbitrary.“It cannot be said that the requirement of screening the candidates by way of taking written test for those who qualified in the physical test in absence of any Rules to the contrary can be said to be arbitrary,” the Bench held.On the issue of participation by the petitioners, the Court noted that although they had submitted a representation objecting to the written examination, they nevertheless participated in the physical test and subsequent stages of recruitment.Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Bench reiterated that candidates who participate in a selection process cannot subsequently challenge it after taking part, observing that “the candidates cannot approbate or reprobate at the same time.”The Bench also rejected reliance on a departmental memorandum dated July 19, 2016, noting that it had not been applied even in earlier recruitment exercises and that, according to the State, it lacked formal government approval.The written test, the Court observed, was introduced uniformly for all eligible candidates and therefore did not violate the equality principles embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.Holding that the Single Judge's decision could not be sustained, the Division Bench set aside the October 16 judgment and directed the State authorities to complete the recruitment process.“The State authorities shall now proceed to complete the process initiated vide an Advertisement dated 07.04.2025, by bringing the same to its logical conclusion,” the Court directed.