LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 20 August 2026

On what grounds may an Appointing Authority decline to appoint a candidate recommended by a Public Service Commission?

SHAILENDRA KUMAR PATEL v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS
2026 INSC 902 · SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 23061 of 2025
Coram: Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh; Sanjay Karol
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow Rule 10 Chhattisgarh State Unive…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

The Appointing Authority may decline appointment where a bona fide change in government policy raises the standard of competence required, where the selection process is vitiated by illegalities such as fraud, manipulation, nepotism or rigging, or where verification of documents reveals the candidate is not in fact eligible. In every such case, the burden lies on the Appointing Authority to show that there were proper reasons to reject the recommendation.

Headnote

Chhattisgarh State Universities Service Rules, 1983 — Rule 10 — Constitution of India — Art. 315, 320 — Public Service Commission — Indefeasible right to appointment — Verification of eligibility — Constitution of India — Public Service Commission — No indefeasible right — Held: Selection and recommendation by a Public Service Commission confers a right to fair, non-arbitrary consideration for appointment, not an indefeasible right to be appointed. The Appointing Authority retains discretion, but it must rest on lawful, non-arbitrary grounds. ('43, 45) Service Rules, 1983 — Rule 10 — Finality of eligibility decision — Held further: Where a statutory rule attaches finality to the Commission's decision on eligibility, verification by the Appointing Authority is confined to document genuineness or a patent, demonstrable deficiency; it cannot undertake an exhaustive de novo reassessment. ('55, 57, 61) Service Law — Grounds for declining recommendation — Held further: An Appointing Authority may decline a recommended candidate for a bona fide policy change, illegality vitiating selection, or a patent ineligibility on verification, recording its reasons. None being proved here, the appeal is allowed. ('46, 68, 69)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 46This right to reject the recommendation of the Commission can pertain to all stages of the recruitment process, as below:
Paragraph 47It is thus clear that the Appointing Authority thus may reject the recommendation on various grounds and keeping in mind the observations made in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), we can only emphasise that if the Appointing Authority declines to act on the recommendation of the Commission, the burden lies on the Appointing Authority to show that there were proper reasons to reject the recommendation, as we shall also elaborate herein as below.
Acts & Sections
Rule 10 Chhattisgarh State Universities Service Rules, 1983Art. 315 Constitution of IndiaArt. 320 Constitution of IndiaArt. 317 Constitution of IndiaArt. 323 Constitution of IndiaArt. 162 Constitution of IndiaArt. 14 Constitution of IndiaArt. 16 Constitution of India

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of SHAILENDRA KUMAR PATEL v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Whether a candidate selected and recommended by a Public Service Commission acquires an indefeasible right to appointment merely by virtue of such selection and recommendation?Where a statutory rule attaches finality to the Commission's decision on eligibility, is the Appointing Authority competent to undertake a detailed, de novo reassessment of that eligibility before issuing the appointment order?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections