Restating the problem. As far as I can tell, your system is equivalent to the following:
$$c_1 x_1 + \dots + c_n x_n = N$$
subject to the constraints
$$0 \le x_1, \dots, x_n \le 1.$$
Solving this problem. This is a linear program, so certainly we can tell in polynomial time whether it has any feasible solution, as a result of the fact that there are polynomial-time algorithms for linear programming.
However, there's a better solution. We can directly solve this problem by inspection, without needing a linear programming solver.
Suppose without loss of generality that $c_1,\dots,c_j$ are positive and $c_{j+1},\dots,c_n$ are zero or negative. (You can re-order the variables to put things into this standard form.)
Then it follows that $c_1 x_1 + \dots + c_n x_n \le c_1 + \dots + c_j$. So, if $c_1 + \dots + c_j < N$, then this problem has no feasible solution. On the other hand, if $N \le c_1 + \dots + c_j$, then it is easy to demonstrate that this problem does have a solution: simply let $x_1 = \cdots = x_j = N/(c_1 + \dots + c_j)$ and let $x_{j+1} = \cdots = x_n = 0$. These $x_i$'s will all fall in the desired range.
Thus, feasibility can be checked in $O(n)$ time (in the RAM model, where basic operations take $O(1)$ time).
Details. Why is it fair game to reduce the problem to the form given above? How did I get the simpler form above?
Well, first off, I removed the variables $a,b$ from the linear program. No matter what values you assign to the $x$'s, you'll always be able to assign a value to $a,b$ derived from the $x$'s that satisfies the equations that mention $a,b$.
Similarly, I removed the equation $k=\dots$ and the variable, since no matter what value we assign to the other variables, we can simply set $k=x_1+\dots+x_n$ and get a value that will satisfy this equation; it will also satisfy $k\ge 0$, since all the $x_i$'s are required to be $\ge 0$. That leaves me with the problem shown at the top of my answer.