The Supreme Court has clarified the limits of an appointing authority’s power to scrutinise the eligibility of a candidate already selected and recommended by a Public Service Commission.
The bench of Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Justice Sanjay Karol has observed that while a selected candidate does not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment merely by being placed in the select list, an appointing authority cannot undertake a fresh, exhaustive and subjective reassessment of eligibility when the governing service rules confer finality on the Commission’s determination.
The bench allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court, declared the candidate eligible for the post of Registrar and directed the State Government to issue an appointment order within three weeks.
Buy Now: 50+ Supreme Court Judgments – July 2026
The case arose from a recruitment process initiated by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission pursuant to an advertisement dated February 9, 2021, for three posts of Registrar in State Universities, including one post reserved for the OBC category.
The candidate participated in the recruitment process after the Commission, with assistance from subject experts, scrutinised his qualifications and experience. He was subsequently declared successful and stood first in the OBC category in the final select list published on September 30, 2021. On October 7, 2021, the Commission forwarded his recommendation to the State Government for appointment, subject to verification of original documents and satisfaction regarding eligibility before issuance of the appointment order.
However, the State Government did not issue the final appointment order. Instead, it initiated a further exercise to verify his eligibility and constituted an expert committee. The committee ultimately concluded that he did not possess the requisite teaching experience prescribed under the advertisement and the applicable service rules.
On October 31, 2022, the State Government declared him ineligible for appointment as Registrar.
The dispute travelled through multiple rounds of litigation before the Chhattisgarh High Court. A Single Judge, by judgment dated May 22, 2025, upheld the State Government’s power to verify eligibility before issuance of a final appointment order and accepted the conclusion that the candidate lacked the prescribed experience.
The Division Bench subsequently dismissed the challenge on June 17, 2025. It agreed that the State was competent to scrutinise eligibility even after selection by the Commission and accepted the report of the committee constituted by the Higher Education Department.
The High Court also upheld the State’s decision not to post the candidate as Registrar and instead assign him duties in the office of the Commissioner, Higher Education Department.
The Supreme Court was therefore called upon to examine the extent of finality attached to the Commission’s determination of eligibility, the scope of post-selection verification by the appointing authority, the legality of the State’s inquiry committee and the consequences of the State’s decision to deny appointment.
The Supreme Court began by reiterating the settled principle that selection or recommendation by a Public Service Commission does not, by itself, create an indefeasible right to appointment.
According to the Court, the appointing authority retains discretion regarding appointment. However, that discretion is not absolute. It must be exercised in accordance with the governing statutory rules and cannot be arbitrary.
The Court relied upon the constitutional role of Public Service Commissions under Articles 315 and 320 of the Constitution, emphasising that such bodies are designed to ensure independent, transparent and merit-based recruitment to public posts.
Thus, while the Commission’s recommendation is not an automatic command to appoint a candidate, the State also cannot disregard the Commission’s determination without lawful and cogent reasons.
A crucial factor in the judgment was Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh State Universities Service Rules, 1983.
The provision states that the Commission’s decision regarding the eligibility or otherwise of a candidate for selection is final.
The Supreme Court held that this statutory language had significant consequences. According to the Court, the Commission performs two distinct functions: it first determines whether a candidate is eligible under the applicable rules and thereafter assesses the candidate’s suitability and merit through the selection process.
Once the Commission has determined eligibility in accordance with Rule 10, the appointing authority cannot independently reopen the substantive question of eligibility and substitute its own assessment merely because it takes a different view.
The Court specifically held that the Commission’s determination of eligibility in the present case was final and binding under Rule 10.
The judgment, however, does not completely eliminate the State’s power to conduct verification.
The Supreme Court clarified that the appointing authority may verify the genuineness of documents and examine whether there is any patent and demonstrable deficiency in eligibility before issuing the final appointment order.
For instance, if documents are forged or fraudulently obtained, if there is a patent illegality in the Commission’s determination, or if new material emerges which clearly establishes that the candidate is ineligible, the appointing authority is not required to blindly accept the recommendation.
But in such circumstances, particularly in view of Rule 10, the proper course would be to refer the matter back to the Commission rather than independently conducting a detailed reassessment of eligibility.
The Court therefore drew a clear line between verification and re-determination of eligibility.
Applying these principles to the case, the Supreme Court found the State’s inquiry committee report unsustainable.
The Court noted that the committee had examined the candidate’s teaching experience, different salary structures and Academic Grade Pay and attempted to determine equivalence between different pay scales. According to the Court, this exercise involved an element of subjectivity and was not founded upon any indisputable official criterion.
Importantly, the Court found that the State had not demonstrated that the Commission’s original eligibility determination was palpably or demonstrably wrong. Nor was there any new material establishing that the candidate was ineligible.
Instead, the committee had undertaken a detailed fact-finding exercise on material that had already been examined during the Commission’s selection process.
The Court consequently held that the State could not use the committee’s report to substitute its own view for the Commission’s determination.
The Supreme Court also considered the fact that there were two competing expert opinions: the Commission had found the candidate eligible, while the State-constituted committee had reached the opposite conclusion.
The Court ordinarily exercises restraint in examining expert opinions, particularly where specialised academic or technical matters are involved. However, where a choice had to be made between the competing views, the Court held that the more reasonable expert determination should prevail.
The Court found no patent or demonstrable deficiency in the candidate’s eligibility and therefore declined to disturb the Commission’s view. It consequently accepted the Commission’s determination under Rule 10 and held the candidate eligible for the post.
The judgment also provides a broader clarification concerning the constitutional relationship between a Public Service Commission and the appointing authority.
The Court reiterated that the State is not constitutionally required to mechanically accept every recommendation of a Public Service Commission. A recommendation does not create an indefeasible right to appointment.
However, where the State departs from the Commission’s recommendation, its decision must be supported by lawful, rational and non-arbitrary reasons. The appointing authority bears the burden of demonstrating the justification for declining appointment.
The Court therefore balanced two principles: the Commission’s institutional autonomy in determining eligibility and merit, and the State’s responsibility to ensure that appointments comply with the governing legal framework.
Having concluded that the State’s inquiry was impermissible and that the Commission’s eligibility determination had to prevail, the Supreme Court declared the candidate eligible for appointment as Registrar under the February 9, 2021 advertisement.
The Court set aside the State Government’s October 31, 2022 order declaring him ineligible and directed that the inquiry committee’s report dated June 28, 2023 would not be given effect.
The State Department was directed to issue the necessary appointment order appointing him as Registrar in any State University of Chhattisgarh within three weeks from the date of the judgment.
The Supreme Court further directed that the candidate would be entitled to appointment as Registrar from the date on which other candidates selected and recommended along with him were appointed.
He was also held entitled to service benefits from that date. However, the Court clarified that he would not receive arrears of pay for the period after his deemed appointment date up to April 10, 2023, since he had been given provisional appointment as Registrar from April 10, 2023.
His seniority was directed to be determined in accordance with the applicable statutory rules.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
