Supreme Court Orders Appointment of PSC-Selected Registrar; Holds State May Verify Eligibility but Cannot Reassess Commission’s Final Determination Without Demonstrable Deficiency Through Independent Detailed Inquiry
Supreme Court Restores Selected Registrar’s Claim; Holds Government Cannot Substitute Its Own Detailed Eligibility Assessment for Statutorily Final Public Service Commission Decision
Facts
The case concerned Dr. Shailendra Kumar Patel, who participated in recruitment conducted by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission for three posts of Registrar in State Universities pursuant to an advertisement dated 9 February 2021. The Commission, assisted by subject experts, examined his qualifications and experience, found him eligible, and ultimately placed him first in the OBC category in the final select list. His name was forwarded to the State Government on 7 October 2021 for appointment, subject to verification of original documents and satisfaction regarding eligibility.
The appellant was already serving as a Deputy Registrar since February 2016 and had earlier teaching and academic-administrative experience. He was also subsequently found suitable by a Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to Registrar and was given additional charge as Registrar of Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur.
Despite the PSC recommendation, the State did not appoint him. In WPS No. 780 of 2022, the Chhattisgarh High Court directed the Government on 29 August 2022 to issue an appointment order within four weeks. Instead, the State constituted a committee to reconsider his eligibility and, by order dated 31 October 2022, declared him ineligible on the ground that he lacked the prescribed experience.
During subsequent review and contempt proceedings, the High Court directed the State to issue a provisional appointment while permitting verification of documents. A provisional appointment order dated 10 April 2023 was consequently issued, but no University posting was specified. The State later posted him temporarily in the office of the Commissioner, Higher Education Department rather than as Registrar of a State University.
An expert committee constituted by the Higher Education Department subsequently concluded that the appellant lacked the requisite experience based principally on its assessment of his Academic Grade Pay and service history. Meanwhile, the PSC itself reaffirmed in March 2024 that subject experts had already scrutinised his eligibility before permitting him to participate and recommending him for appointment.
Both the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the State’s power to reassess his eligibility and accepted the committee’s conclusion that he was ineligible. The matter consequently reached the Supreme Court.
Issues
The Supreme Court considered whether selection and recommendation by a Public Service Commission confer an indefeasible right to appointment; whether the State, as appointing authority, can verify or reassess eligibility after the PSC has found a candidate eligible; and whether the State’s expert committee legally reassessed the appellant’s eligibility and experience.
The larger constitutional question was how to reconcile the institutional primacy and independence of a Public Service Commission with the appointing authority’s responsibility to ensure that only eligible candidates enter public service.
Appellant’s Arguments
The appellant argued that Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh State Universities Service Rules, 1983 expressly made the PSC’s decision on eligibility final. Once the Commission, assisted by experts, scrutinised his qualifications, permitted him to participate and recommended him, the State could not independently conduct a de novo examination of the same question.
He contended that the High Court’s earlier liberty to “verify documents” did not authorise a fresh substantive determination of eligibility. The State’s committee therefore exceeded the permissible scope of verification.
He further argued that the committee wrongly excluded substantial portions of his teaching and administrative experience and misunderstood the applicable pay-scale and Academic Grade Pay equivalence. According to him, his experience satisfied the eight-year requirement prescribed for the post.
The appellant accepted that selection alone does not create an absolute right to appointment but argued that the State nevertheless cannot deny appointment arbitrarily, irrationally or discriminatorily. He relied upon Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India and Manoj Manu v. Union of India in support.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued that the appellant did not satisfy the prescribed teaching and administrative experience and relied upon the Higher Education Department committee’s report dated 28 June 2023.
It emphasised that the PSC’s recommendation itself stated that appointment was subject to verification of original documents and satisfaction regarding eligibility. Therefore, according to the State, the appointing authority retained independent power to scrutinise whether a selected candidate actually met statutory eligibility conditions.
The respondents relied upon the settled principle that inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, citing decisions including Punjab State Electricity Board v. Malkiat Singh and Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court.
They also defended the appellant’s placement in the Higher Education Department as an administrative arrangement under Article 162 of the Constitution.
Analysis of the Law
The Supreme Court began by recognising the special constitutional position of Public Service Commissions under Article 315. Their independence, impartiality and integrity are intended to insulate public recruitment from political pressure, favouritism and other extraneous considerations and ensure merit-based selection.
At the same time, the Commission’s recommendation remains recommendatory rather than automatically binding upon the appointing authority. A successful candidate therefore does not acquire an absolute or indefeasible right to appointment merely because his name appears in the select list.
However, selection does confer a right to fair, non-arbitrary and equitable consideration for appointment. Government discretion to reject a recommendation must therefore be exercised on legally sustainable and germane grounds.
The decisive provision in the present case was Rule 10 of the 1983 Rules, which stated:
“The decision of the Commission as to the eligibility or otherwise of a candidate for selection shall be final.”
The Court held that the statutory finality attached by Rule 10 materially restricted the State’s ability to substitute its own assessment for the Commission’s expert determination.
This did not completely eliminate the appointing authority’s verification power. The State could still verify original documents and identify a patent and demonstrable deficiency in eligibility. But verification could not become an exhaustive, independent reconsideration of issues already examined by the PSC.
Where genuine doubt existed, the proper course was to refer the matter back to the Commission, rather than constitute another committee to redetermine eligibility independently.
Precedent Analysis
The Supreme Court relied significantly on Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, which establishes that successful inclusion in a select list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment. Nevertheless, the Government cannot act arbitrarily; a decision not to appoint must be bona fide and supported by appropriate reasons.
In Commissioner of Police v. Umesh Kumar, (2020) 10 SCC 448, the Court had similarly reaffirmed that inclusion in a select list does not create a vested right.
The Constitution Bench decision in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, (2025) 2 SCC 1 was particularly important. It reiterated that although a selected candidate has no absolute right to appointment, the State cannot arbitrarily deny appointment; once challenged, the burden rests upon the State to justify why appointment was withheld.
The Court also relied on H. Mukherjee v. Union of India, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 250, recognising that PSC recommendations are generally recommendatory and Government may depart from them, but its discretion remains governed by constitutional and statutory constraints.
In Asha Kaul v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1993) 2 SCC 573, the Supreme Court had emphasised that Government does not enjoy absolute power to disregard a Public Service Commission. Departure from its recommendations must be supported by recorded and legally sustainable reasons, consistent with the constitutional scheme protecting Commission independence.
These authorities led the Court to reconcile two propositions: selection is not appointment, but equally appointing-authority discretion is not licence for arbitrary substitution of the PSC’s statutory functions.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court found that the State’s committee had not discovered any forged document, undisclosed disqualification, new material, fraud, corruption or patent error that demonstrated the appellant’s ineligibility.
Instead, the committee reconsidered the same material already examined by the PSC, reassessing the appellant’s teaching experience and Academic Grade Pay through its own interpretation and equivalence exercise. The Court observed that no indisputable official criterion formed the basis of this reassessment and that the exercise involved substantial subjectivity.
The State also produced no material demonstrating that the PSC’s original assessment was palpably or demonstrably incorrect. There was therefore no justification for embarking upon an exhaustive second inquiry.
Importantly, the Supreme Court did not itself undertake a fresh technical determination of the appellant’s experience. Instead, because no prima facie material showed that the PSC’s conclusion was wholly incorrect, the Court allowed the PSC’s determination to prevail under Rule 10 and consequently treated the appellant as eligible.
The Court crystallised the governing principles by holding that although the State may verify eligibility before issuing an appointment order, any adverse conclusion must rest upon a patent and demonstrable deficiency. If there is genuine doubt requiring substantive reconsideration, the matter must be referred back to the PSC. The Government itself cannot undertake a detailed independent inquiry and substitute its conclusion for the Commission’s decision.
The State’s committee report dated 28 June 2023 was therefore legally unsustainable.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Chhattisgarh High Court Division Bench judgment dated 17 June 2025. Consequently, WPS No. 8005 of 2022 and WPS No. 7350 of 2023 were allowed.
The Court declared Shailendra Kumar Patel eligible for appointment as Registrar, directed that the State’s inquiry report dated 28 June 2023 should not be acted upon, and set aside the Government’s order dated 31 October 2022 declaring him ineligible.
The State was directed to appoint him as Registrar in any State University of Chhattisgarh within three weeks.
The Court further held that he would be treated as appointed from the date on which the other candidates selected and recommended along with him were appointed and would receive consequential service benefits and seniority according to the statutory rules. However, no arrears of salary were granted for the period up to his provisional appointment on 10 April 2023.
The connected Contempt Petition was also disposed of in view of these substantive directions.
Case Details
Case: Shailendra Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Court: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Citation: 2026 INSC 902
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 238 of 2026, arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 23061 of 2025; with Contempt Petition (C) No. 765 of 2025 in SLP (C) No. 22648 of 2025
Judges: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Date: 20 August 2026
Result: Appeal allowed; State’s ineligibility order and expert committee report set aside; appellant declared eligible and directed to be appointed Registrar within three weeks with retrospective service benefits and statutory seniority, but without arrears up to 10 April 2023; contempt petition disposed of.
