Once Service Rules Say PSC's Decision Is Final, Govt Cannot Inquire Into Candidate's Eligibility: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that where service rules expressly make the Public Service Commission's decision on a candidate's eligibility final, the government cannot independently reopen and exhaustively reassess the candidate's eligibility after the Commission has found the person eligible and recommended them for appointment.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard a case involving one Shailendra Kumar Patel, who was selected and recommended by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) for the post of Registrar in a State University. Despite the recommendation, the State Government constituted its own inquiry committee, which concluded that the Appellant did not possess the requisite experience, leading to his disqualification.

The Court set aside the concurrent findings of the Division and Single Bench decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which had justified the State Government decision to undertake an exhaustive enquiry into the eligibility of the Appellants, who were recommended and selected by the State PSC for the Registrar post.

“…we hold that it was not open for the Government to independently re-examine the issue of eligibility and arrive at a different conclusion, based on the detailed re-examination that the candidate is not eligible, that area of consideration having been taken away statutorily from the Appointing Authority and specifically assigned to the Commission.”, the Court observed.

The Court held under Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh State Universities Service Rules, 1983, the Commission's decision on eligibility is final.

“Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh State Universities Service Rules, 1983 accords finality to the Commission's decision on a candidate's eligibility…Rule 10, however, does not exclude or curtail the authority of the Appointing Authority to undertake verification as regards eligibility, but any such decision by the Appointing Authority on eligibility must be based on a patent and demonstrable deficiency in eligibility.”, the court said.

State's enquiry to candidate's eligibility is limited to verification of documents

The Court clarified that “while the Respondent-State was competent to verify the Appellant's eligibility, it would be limited only to the verification of his documents for its satisfaction, prior to issuance of the final appointment order, and could not mean authorising it to undertake an exhaustive enquiry into the eligibility, which exercise is within the domain of the Commission.”

“We are, therefore, of the considered view that the finality attached to the Commission's determination under Rule 10 prevents the Appointing Authority from examining the substantive question of eligibility in the manner so done in the present case. The verification could be only of the genuineness of the documents or to find out any patent demonstrative deficiency in the eligibility of the Appellant, which is not the case herein. Accordingly, the report dated 28.06.2023 cannot form the basis for redetermining the Appellant's eligibility, as it has no force of law and is liable to be ignored.”, the Court said.

As a result, the appeal was allowed, declaring the Appellant to be eligible for the post of Registrar and directing the State Government to issue a final appointment order within three weeks.

The Court also ordered that the Appellant be entitled to appointment from the date when other selected candidates were appointed, though without arrears of pay for the provisional period.

Headnote

Service Law – Selection vs. Appointment – Public Service Commission – Right of Recommended Candidates - Mere inclusion of a candidate's name in a select list or a recommendation by the Public Service Commission does not confer an indefeasible or vested right to appointment - Selection only confers a right to fair, non-arbitrary, and equitable consideration for appointment - While appointment pursuant to the Commission's selection is the norm, the Appointing Authority retains ultimate discretion to decide whether or not to appoint - this executive discretion is not absolute or untrammelled; it must be informed by valid, germane, and non-arbitrary reasons supported by the record and the governing statutory rules - When a challenge is mounted against the denial of appointment to a selected candidate, the burden rests on the State/Appointing Authority to justify its decision with cogent reasons. [Relied On Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47; State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220; Commissioner of Police v. Umesh Kumar, (2020) 10 SCC 448; Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, (2025) 2 SCC 1; H. Mukherjee (Dr) v. Union of India, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 250; Asha Kaul (Mrs.) & Anr. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 573; Paras 43 – 68]

Service Law – Chhattisgarh State Universities Service Rules, 1983 – Rule 10 – Finality Commission's Decision on Eligibility – Scope of Reassessment/Verification by Appointing Authority - Under Rule 10 of the Service Rules, 1983, the decision of the Public Service Commission regarding the eligibility of a candidate is final and binding - The Appointing Authority cannot usurp or supplant the constitutional and statutory domain of the Commission by undertaking an exhaustive, subjective, or de novo inquiry through an independently constituted expert committee to redetermine eligibility on materials already scrutinised by the Commission - The power of the Appointing Authority to verify documents before issuing an appointment order is strictly confined to – i. Checking the genuineness and authenticity of certificates/documents (e.g., detecting fraud, forgery, or impersonation); ii. Detecting fundamental, patent, and demonstrable deficiencies in eligibility without an exhaustive inquiry; iii. Evaluating new materials brought to its notice that clearly establish ineligibility - If the Appointing Authority entertains any doubt or reservation concerning a candidate's eligibility, it cannot unilaterally declare the candidate ineligible; it is duty-bound to refer the matter back to the Commission with reasons for its view - An administrative stipulation in a recommendation letter requiring "verification and satisfaction regarding eligibility" cannot dilute or override the statutory finality attached under Rule 10 - Held, the inquiry report dated 28.06.2023 constituted by the State was unsustainable in law and liable to be ignored. [Relied On Ram Ashray Yadav (Dr), Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, In Re, (2000) 4 SCC 309; Ram Kumar Kashyap v. Union of India, (2009) 9 SCC 378; Paras 51-68]

Service Law – Direct Recruitment vs. Promotion – Distinct Eligibility Criteria - Eligibility criteria for appointment by direct recruitment and appointment by promotion are distinct and governed by separate requirements under the rules - A candidate's eligibility for direct recruitment cannot be determined or evaluated with reference to the statutory criteria prescribed for promotion. [Para 66]

Relief & Directions – Non-issuance of Appointment Order – Consequential Benefits - Where a candidate was duly recommended by the PSC, reaffirmed as eligible by the Commission, and unlawfully denied regular posting due to an invalid de novo departmental inquiry, the candidate was entitled to be appointed to the post of Registrar against an available vacancy - The Supreme Court directed the State to issue an appointment order within three weeks, according the appellant parity of service benefits and seniority from the date co-selectees were appointed, though arrears of pay prior to the date of provisional appointment (10.04.2023) were disallowed. [Paras 67 - 70]

Cause Title: SHAILENDRA KUMAR PATEL VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 838

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Ms. Parul Shukla, AOR Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Adv. Ms. Shubhangi Pandey, Adv. Mr. Gladson Rodrigues, Adv. Ms. Keesha Kumar, Adv. Ms. Riddhi Jain, Adv. Mr. Adithya K Roy, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Ms. Ayushi Pandey, Adv. Ms. Aswathi M.K., AOR Mr. Shesh Deshpandey, Adv. Mr. Bishwajit Dubey, A.A.G. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, AOR Mr. Yashvardhan Shah, Adv. Mr. Akshit Awasthi, Adv. Ms. Kritika Yadav, Adv. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Pandey, Adv. Ms. Aswathi M.K., AOR Mr. Shesh Deshpandey, Adv.