Chhattisgarh State Universities Service Rules, 1983, R. 10 — Determination of Eligibility by Public Service Commission — Statutory finality — Appointing Authority cannot conduct de novo enquiry into eligibility through parallel expert committee — Scope of post-selection verification. Held: Rule 10 of the Service Rules, 1983 attaches statutory finality to the Commission’s decision regarding the eligibility of candidates. While the Appointing Authority remains entitled to verify original certificates to ensure genuineness, detect fraud/forgery, or discover any patent and demonstrable deficiency, it has no jurisdiction to usurp the Commission's constitutional domain by undertaking an exhaustive de novo reassessment of eligibility via a State-constituted departmental committee on materials already scrutinized by the Commission. If the Appointing Authority entertains serious doubts or unearths new material indicating ineligibility, it must refer the matter back to the Commission rather than unilaterally declaring the candidate ineligible. (Paras 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 68(ii)–(vii))

  2026 INSC 902

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(From: Chhattisgarh High Court)

Coram: SANJAY KAROL and NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 238 of 2026 (@ SLP (Civil) No. 23061 of 2025) with Contempt Petition (C) No. 765 of 2025 in SLP (C) No. 22648 of 2025, D/- 20-08-2026.

Shailendra Kumar Patel — Appellant

versus

State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. — Respondents

HEADNOTE

(A) Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 16, 315, 320 — Public Employment — Public Service Commission vs. Appointing Authority — Right of selected candidate to appointment — Nature of Commission’s recommendation — Scope of Appointing Authority's power of verification.

Held: Inclusion of a candidate’s name in the select list or recommendation by the Public Service Commission does not confer an indefeasible or vested right to appointment. The role of the Commission is recommendatory, and the Appointing Authority retains ultimate discretion to appoint or decline appointment. However, such discretion is not absolute or untrammelled; it must be exercised bona fide, supported by germane, lawful, and non-arbitrary reasons, and strictly in conformity with the governing service rules. The State cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a selected candidate. (Paras 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 49, 68(i))

(1974) 3 SCC 220; (1991) 3 SCC 47; (1993) 2 SCC 573; 1994 Supp (1) SCC 250; (2020) 10 SCC 448; and (2025) 2 SCC 1 — Relied on.

(B) Chhattisgarh State Universities Service Rules, 1983, R. 10 — Determination of Eligibility by Public Service Commission — Statutory finality — Appointing Authority cannot conduct de novo enquiry into eligibility through parallel expert committee — Scope of post-selection verification.

Held: Rule 10 of the Service Rules, 1983 attaches statutory finality to the Commission’s decision regarding the eligibility of candidates. While the Appointing Authority remains entitled to verify original certificates to ensure genuineness, detect fraud/forgery, or discover any patent and demonstrable deficiency, it has no jurisdiction to usurp the Commission's constitutional domain by undertaking an exhaustive de novo reassessment of eligibility via a State-constituted departmental committee on materials already scrutinized by the Commission. If the Appointing Authority entertains serious doubts or unearths new material indicating ineligibility, it must refer the matter back to the Commission rather than unilaterally declaring the candidate ineligible. (Paras 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 68(ii)–(vii))

(C) Service Law — Appointment and Posting — Direct Recruitment to post of Registrar in State Universities — Posting candidate to Commissionerate/Directorate instead of University — Permissibility.

Held: Under the Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 and the Service Rules, 1983, the Registrar is an officer of the University. Where a candidate is lawfully selected and recommended by the Commission for the post of Registrar, the State Government cannot frustrate the selection by issuing a provisional appointment and attaching or posting the candidate to the office of the Commissioner or Directorate of Higher Education on a temporary basis. The selected candidate is entitled to a regular posting in a State University against an available vacancy. (Paras 3, 21, 23, 67, 68(viii), 69(iii))

FACTS

• Pursuant to an advertisement dated 09.02.2021 issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission for direct recruitment to three posts of Registrar in State Universities, the Appellant applied under the OBC category. After due scrutiny of his qualifications and experience by subject experts, he was interviewed, stood first in merit in the OBC category, and was recommended for appointment on 07.10.2021. (Paras 5, 11, 12)
  
  
• Upon the State Government's failure to issue an appointment letter, the Appellant filed WPS No. 780 of 2022, wherein the High Court directed the State on 29.08.2022 to issue the appointment order within four weeks. (Paras 13, 15)
  
  
• Instead of appointing him, the State constituted a departmental inquiry committee of three college principals, which concluded on the basis of pay scale/AGP comparisons that the Appellant lacked the requisite teaching experience. Relying on this report, the State declared the Appellant ineligible on 31.10.2022. (Paras 16, 24, 51)
  
  
• Following contempt and review proceedings, the High Court directed provisional appointment with liberty to verify documents. The State issued a provisional appointment order on 10.04.2023 without assigning a university posting, and subsequently posted him to the office of the Commissioner, Higher Education on 31.08.2023. (Paras 18, 19, 21)
  
  
• The Appellant filed WPS Nos. 8005 of 2022 and 7350 of 2023 challenging his rejection and non-posting. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, and the Division Bench affirmed the dismissal in Writ Appeal No. 360 of 2025. (Paras 3, 4, 27, 30)
  
  

ANALYSIS OF FACTS & LAW

• Balancing Commission's Primacy and State's Discretion: The Public Service Commission is a constitutional body (Article 315) designed to secure merit-based selections free from executive interference. While the State has the ultimate authority to make appointments, its refusal to accept a recommendation must rest on cogent, lawful grounds (such as fraud, criminal antecedents, or policy changes requiring higher standards). (Paras 39, 41, 46, 49)
  
  
• Statutory Bar under Rule 10: Rule 10 explicitly makes the Commission's decision on eligibility final. The condition in the Commission’s forwarding letter dated 07.10.2021 regarding "verification and satisfaction" must be harmonized with Rule 10; it permits routine verification of original documents and credentials, not a subjective de novo re-evaluation of teaching experience. (Paras 53, 55, 59)
  
  
• Reiteration by Commission: When the State sought clarification, the Commission, vide communication dated 28.03.2024, reaffirmed that the Appellant's experience had been thoroughly assessed by domain experts prior to the interview. In the presence of conflicting expert opinions, the statutory finality under Rule 10 mandates that the Commission’s expert view must prevail over the State's departmental committee. (Paras 26, 58, 62, 63, 64)
  
  

CONCLUSION

• The judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 360 of 2025 and the Common Order in WPS Nos. 8005 of 2022 & 7350 of 2023 were set aside.
  
  
• The departmental inquiry report dated 28.06.2023 and the State Government's rejection order dated 31.10.2022 were quashed.
  
  
• The Appellant was declared eligible and directed to be appointed as Registrar in a State University in Chhattisgarh within three weeks.
  
  
• The Appellant was held entitled to notional appointment and all consequential service benefits/seniority from the date his co-selectees were appointed, though actual arrears of pay were restricted to start from his provisional appointment date of 10.04.2023.
  
  
• Appeal allowed; Contempt Petition (C) No. 765 of 2025 disposed of. (Paras 69, 70, 71)