State Cannot Overrule Public Service Commission by Setting Up Its Own Rival Expert Committee: Supreme Court Orders Appointment of Selected Registrar

Case Name: Shailendra Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Date of Judgment: 20 August 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 902

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Held: The Supreme Court held that selection and recommendation by a Public Service Commission do not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. Nevertheless, the appointing authority cannot reject the recommendation arbitrarily or conduct a detailed de novo reassessment of a candidate’s eligibility where the applicable statutory rules give finality to the Commission’s determination. The State may verify the genuineness of documents and act upon a patent and demonstrable eligibility defect, fraud, forgery or new material. However, if it doubts the Commission’s assessment, it must refer the matter back to the Commission instead of constituting its own committee to substitute another expert opinion.

Summary: The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission issued an advertisement dated 9 February 2021 for direct recruitment to three posts of Registrar in State Universities. Shailendra Kumar Patel, who was serving as a Deputy Registrar, applied under the OBC category.

After scrutiny of his qualifications and experience by subject experts, Patel was permitted to participate in the written examination and interview. He secured first position in the OBC category, and the Commission recommended his appointment to the State Government on 7 October 2021. The recommendation required the appointing authority to verify the candidate’s original documents and satisfy itself regarding eligibility before issuing the appointment order.

Despite the recommendation, the State did not appoint Patel. He approached the Chhattisgarh High Court, which directed the Government to issue his appointment order within four weeks. Instead of complying, the State constituted a committee to reassess his eligibility. Relying on its report, the Government passed an order dated 31 October 2022 declaring 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 order while permitting verification of the documents submitted by Patel. A provisional appointment order was issued on 10 April 2023, but no university was assigned to him. He was later posted temporarily in the office of the Commissioner, Higher Education Department, even though vacancies of Registrar allegedly existed in several State Universities.

A State-appointed committee subsequently examined Patel’s service particulars, teaching experience and Academic Grade Pay and again concluded that he was ineligible. The Commission, however, informed the State in March 2024 that subject experts had already scrutinised the candidates’ educational qualifications and experience and that only eligible candidates had been allowed to participate in the interview. It thereby reaffirmed its earlier eligibility determination.

The Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court upheld the State’s authority to reassess Patel’s eligibility. They relied upon the settled principle that selection does not create an indefeasible right to appointment and accepted the State committee’s conclusion that Patel lacked the prescribed experience.

The Supreme Court agreed with the general proposition that inclusion in a select list or recommendation by a Public Service Commission does not create an absolute right to appointment. A candidate only acquires a right to fair, non-arbitrary and equitable consideration. The appointing authority may refuse appointment for lawful reasons, including a change in policy, serious irregularities in the selection process, fraud, corruption, manipulation or a clearly established lack of eligibility.

However, this discretion is neither absolute nor unreviewable. Where appointment is denied to a selected candidate, the State bears the burden of establishing lawful, rational and cogent reasons for its decision. It cannot depart from the Commission’s recommendation according to its “own sweet will.”

The decisive provision was Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh State Universities Service Rules, 1983, which declares the Commission’s decision regarding a candidate’s eligibility for selection to be final. The Court held that this statutory finality prevented the State from independently conducting an exhaustive reassessment of Patel’s qualifications and reaching a contrary conclusion on the same material already examined by the Commission’s experts.

The State’s authority to verify documents did not authorise a fresh determination of substantive eligibility. Verification was limited to examining the genuineness of documents, detecting fraud or forgery, acting upon new material, or identifying a patent and readily demonstrable eligibility deficiency. An executive stipulation in the Commission’s recommendation letter could not dilute or override Rule 10.

The State committee did not identify forged documents, fraud, fresh evidence, mala fides or any patent error in the Commission’s assessment. Instead, it undertook a subjective comparison of Patel’s teaching experience and Academic Grade Pay based on material already considered by the Commission. No indisputable official criterion formed the basis of its contrary conclusion.

The Supreme Court held that allowing the State to constitute a parallel expert committee and substitute its opinion for that of the Commission would encroach upon the Commission’s constitutionally and statutorily assigned domain. If the State genuinely doubted Patel’s eligibility, it ought to have returned the matter to the Commission with recorded reasons.

The Court further noted that when the State subsequently sought clarification, the Commission reiterated that subject experts had already verified Patel’s qualifications and experience. In the absence of any patent or demonstrable deficiency, the Commission’s determination was required to prevail under Rule 10.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court. It directed that the inquiry report dated 28 June 2023 should not be acted upon against Patel and quashed the State Government’s order dated 31 October 2022 declaring him ineligible.

Patel was declared eligible for appointment as Registrar under the 2021 advertisement. The State was directed to appoint him as Registrar in any State University of Chhattisgarh within three weeks. He was granted appointment and consequential service benefits from the date on which the other candidates selected alongside him were appointed. However, he was denied arrears of salary for the period preceding his provisional appointment on 10 April 2023. His seniority was directed to be determined under the applicable statutory rules. The connected contempt petition was also disposed of.