Candidates allege irregularities in Excise constable recruitment process

A group of intending candidates has raised serious objections over alleged procedural irregularities in the recruitment of 46 Excise constables by the Departmental Recruitment Board (DRB), Excise department. In representations addressed to the Commissioner of Excise & Prohibition and shared with the media, the candidates have appealed for immediate corrective action to ensure the process adheres to the Nagaland Excise Service (Revised) Rules, 1999.
In a complaint, seventeen candidates highlighted 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, they alleged that only after an RTI filed on May 17, 2025, did the DRB issue a corrigendum dated June 4, 2025, suddenly including a written test component.
The complainants alleged that this change was introduced without due process and reflected a lack of familiarity with service rules and legal precedents. They stated that the DRB’s initial intention to rely solely on viva voce, a subjective component, raised doubts over the transparency and fairness of the process.
Further, an RTI reply dated July 4, 2025, revealed the following break-up: Physical Test (qualifying only), Written Test (100 marks), and Viva Voce (12 marks).
The candidates noted this contradicted the department’s earlier claim that viva voce comprised 12% of total marks. Instead, it constituted 10.71% of the revised total (112 marks), highlighting inconsistencies and lack of uniformity with earlier recruitment drives in 2018 and 2019, which had only two stages—Physical Test and Viva Voce.
They also raised concerns that the sudden introduction of a written test disadvantaged candidates with lower educational qualifications (minimum required: Class 8) against better-educated applicants. Moreover, they questioned the exclusion of marks for physical fitness, calling it unjustified for a constable post and contrary to standing norms and past practices.
The group also alleged that the Departmental Recruitment Board was constituted only on April 23, 2025—after the recruitment advertisement was issued—violating a prior directive (No. EX/ESTT/4/2010/541 dated March 4, 2025), which explicitly instructed the department to form the board prior to announcing any recruitment.
They contended that the DRB, as currently constituted, violated Rule 7 of the Nagaland Excise Service (Revised) Rules, 1999, which governs board composition, and that any recruitment conducted by an improperly formed board would be void and illegal.
Additionally, they pointed out that the memorandum dated July 19, 2016, which prescribes detailed physical and medical standards, should have been followed in the physical test. Any deviation would render the process flawed, they argued.
The candidates maintained that while the DRB had extended the selection window by a day—from July 23 to July 24, 2025—to accommodate candidates from remote areas, the move did not address the core concern of arbitrary and non-transparent alterations in the recruitment criteria.
They also warned that if the department proceeds without addressing these legal and procedural lapses, they would reserve the right to challenge the validity of the selection process in court. They urged that the recruitment be conducted in strict compliance with the Excise Service Rules, 1999, and that physical test and viva voce be given appropriate weightage in line with previous practice and the Supreme Court directive that interview marks must not exceed 12% of the total.
The group has requested the concerned authorities, including the Advisor and Secretary of the Excise department, to take cognizance of their appeal and ensure the process is transparent, lawful, and fair to all candidates, particularly those from rural and underprivileged backgrounds.