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
No. Verification by the Appointing Authority could be only of the genuineness of the documents or to find out any patent, demonstrable deficiency in eligibility; it is not open to it to conduct a de novo examination of eligibility, an area of consideration taken away statutorily from the Appointing Authority and assigned to the Commission. If the Appointing Authority has doubts, it must refer the matter back to the Commission rather than independently redetermine eligibility.
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 55Regarding the candidate’s eligibility, the Commission reaches a conclusion by careful application of mind based on the material available before it. In the present case, the Commission's determination as to the candidate's eligibility, which was done with the help of experts, is final and binding, as mandated by Rule 10, which categorically provides that the Commission’s decision on a candidate's eligibility for selection is final. In the light of the statutory provision attaching finality to the view of the Commission, we hold that it was not open for the Government to independently re-examine the issue of eligibility and arrive at a different conclusion, based on the detailed re-examination that the candidate is not eligible, that area of consideration having been taken away statutorily from the Appointing Authority and specifically assigned to the Commission.
Paragraph 57This, of course, does not mean that the Appointing Authority would be entitled to undertake a detailed and exhaustive reassessment of the candidate's eligibility, as the Commission had already undertaken such an exercise with the help of experts, as per the constitutional scheme. At best, the Appointing Authority could examine the candidate's eligibility from a limited perspective, as discussed above. If the Appointing Authority detects a fundamental error which is apparent and easily discoverable without undertaking an exhaustive enquiry which goes to the root of the eligibility, or on the basis of new materials brought to their notice, comes to the conclusion that the candidate is not eligible, the Appointing Authority would be within its right to defer appointment and seek the view of the Commission as regards the eligibility in view of the statutory provision under Rule 10.
Paragraph 58In the present case, the Commission had already undertaken a detailed examination of the Appellant’s eligibility with the help of experts. The Commission reiterated the Appellant's eligibility when the State Government sought the Commission's view again during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court. Under the circumstances, in this case, if we approve the State Government’s action to embark on a detailed de novo examination of a candidate’s eligibility, it will be encroaching upon the domain of the Commission, which is specifically tasked with such an exercise. Such action would supplant the Commission's role and function in assessing eligibility, and not only the suitability of the candidate, a role specifically assigned to the Commission under the constitutional scheme and, in the present case, is made conclusive as Rule 10 attaches finality to the view of the Commission as regards eligibility.
Paragraph 61We are, therefore, of the considered view that the finality attached to the Commission's determination under Rule 10 prevents the Appointing Authority from examining the substantive question of eligibility in the manner so done in the present case. The verification could be only of the genuineness of the documents or to find out any patent demonstrative deficiency in the eligibility of the Appellant, which is not the case herein. Accordingly, the report dated 28.06.2023 cannot form the basis for redetermining the Appellant's eligibility, as it has no force of law and is liable to be ignored. ISSUE NO. III: Whether the Appellant fulfils the teaching criteria and whether the findings of the committee as to the eligibility of the Appellant are otherwise legally sustainable?
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 accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India