Once PSC settles eligibility, State cannot reopen it by fresh inquiry: Supreme Court

A Division Bench held that Rule 10 gives finality to the Chhattisgarh PSC’s eligibility decision, barring the State from a de novo reassessment, and ordered a Registrar’s appointment.

The Supreme Court has held that where a statutory rule attaches finality to a Public Service Commission’s decision on a candidate’s eligibility, the appointing State cannot embark on a fresh, detailed reassessment of that eligibility after selection. Deciding a civil appeal on 20 August 2026, a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside concurrent judgments of the High Court of Chhattisgarh that had upheld the State’s power to redetermine the appellant’s eligibility for the post of Registrar. The Court found that Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh State Universities Service Rules, 1983 makes the Commission’s eligibility decision final, and that a State-constituted expert committee had impermissibly conducted a de novo inquiry on materials the Commission had already examined. The appellant was declared eligible and the State was directed to appoint him.

How the dispute reached the Court

Dr. Shailendra Kumar Patel, serving as a Deputy Registrar since 26 February 2016, applied under the OBC category to an advertisement dated 9 February 2021 for three Registrar posts in the State Universities of Chhattisgarh. The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission scrutinised his qualifications with subject experts, permitted him to sit the selection process, and on 30 September 2021 placed him first in the OBC category. By communication dated 7 October 2021, the Commission recommended his name to the State Government.

No appointment order followed. After the appellant approached the High Court in WPS No. 780 of 2022, the Single Judge on 29 August 2022 directed issuance of the appointment order within four weeks. Instead, the State constituted a committee and, by order dated 31 October 2022, declared him ineligible for want of the requisite experience.

Litigation continued. In review and contempt proceedings, the High Court on 31 March 2023 directed a provisional appointment within ten days, with liberty to the State to verify the appellant’s documents. A provisional appointment order dated 10 April 2023 followed, but without a place of posting. On 31 August 2023 the State posted him to the office of the Commissioner, Higher Education Department, rather than to a University vacancy.

The Single Judge dismissed both writ petitions on 22 May 2025, relying on Commissioner of Police v. Umesh Kumar and Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court to hold that selection confers no indefeasible right to appointment. The Division Bench affirmed on 17 June 2025. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.

No indefeasible right, but no arbitrary rejection either

The Court reaffirmed settled service law that inclusion in a select list does not create a vested right to appointment. It traced the constitutional position of Public Service Commissions under Article 315 and described the Commission’s role as advisory and recommendatory, with the appointing authority retaining ultimate discretion.

That discretion, the Court said, is not absolute. Relying on Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, Asha Kaul v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Tej Prakash Pathak, the Bench held that any decision to withhold appointment must rest on lawful, rational and non-arbitrary reasons, with the burden on the State to justify a refusal. The Court identified permissible grounds for declining appointment: a change in policy raising standards, a selection vitiated by fraud, manipulation or corruption, and verification revealing ineligibility.

Rule 10 and the limits of post-selection verification

The core holding turned on Rule 10 of the Service Rules, 1983, which provides that the Commission’s decision on a candidate’s eligibility “shall be final.” The Court distinguished the Commission’s two functions: assessing eligibility, an objective exercise done with experts, and assessing suitability through examinations and interviews.

Because Rule 10 attaches finality to the eligibility determination, the Court held the State could not independently re-examine that question and reach a contrary conclusion through a detailed inquiry. That area of consideration, it said, had been “taken away statutorily” and assigned to the Commission. If the appointing authority harboured doubt, the proper course was to return the recommendation to the Commission with reasons.

The State had relied on the recommendation letter of 7 October 2021, which required verification of documents and satisfaction regarding eligibility before appointment. The Court read that stipulation in light of Rule 10, holding an executive communication cannot dilute a statutory provision. Verification could extend only to the genuineness of documents, or a patent illegality in the Commission’s determination, or new material clearly showing ineligibility — none of which was present here.

On the facts, the Court found the committee’s finding rested on materials already examined by the Commission and involved subjectivity, comparing Academic Grade Pay across institutions without any indisputable official criterion. It recorded that appointments had been made for other recommended candidates, showing the selection process itself was not in doubt. The report dated 28 June 2023, the Court held, had no force of law and was liable to be ignored.

The competing expert views

The Bench noted two contradictory expert opinions: the Commission finding the appellant eligible, and the State committee finding him ineligible. It observed that courts ordinarily do not examine the correctness of expert views absent patent illegality. Given Rule 10, the Court gave primacy to the Commission’s view unless shown to be wholly incorrect, which was not demonstrated.

The Court declined to refer the matter back to the Commission. When the State wrote to the Commission on 28 February 2024, it already held the committee’s report; the Commission’s reply of 28 March 2024 reaffirmed that subject experts had verified qualifications and experience before the interview. The Court read this as the Commission reiterating its eligibility finding. It clarified that eligibility would be judged against the direct recruitment criteria, not the rules for promotion.

Order

The appeal was allowed. The Court set aside the Division Bench judgment dated 17 June 2025 and allowed WPS No. 8005 of 2022 and WPS No. 7350 of 2023.

The Court directed that the inquiry report dated 28 June 2023 shall not be given effect to against the appellant, declared him eligible in terms of the advertisement dated 9 February 2021, and set aside the order dated 31 October 2022 declaring him ineligible. The State was directed to issue an appointment order to the post of Registrar in any State University of Chhattisgarh within three weeks.

The appellant was held entitled to appointment from the date others selected with him were appointed, with all service benefits from that date, but without arrears of pay up to 10 April 2023, his provisional appointment date. Seniority is to be determined under the statutory Rules. Contempt Petition (C) No. 765 of 2025 was disposed of, with parties bearing their own costs.