Supreme Court of India· 20 August 2026

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?

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

No. Selection confers upon the candidate a right to fair, non-arbitrary and equitable consideration for appointment, but it does not by itself crystallise into an absolute right to be appointed. The Appointing Authority retains discretion in the matter of appointments, but that discretion is not absolute; it must be informed by valid and germane reasons based on the relevant statutory rules, and the burden lies on the Appointing Authority to justify a decision not to appoint a selected candidate.

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 43It is settled law that a recommended candidate does not have an indefeasible right to appointment and the Appointing Authority retains certain discretion in the matter of appointments. The mere inclusion of a candidate's name in a select list or in a recommendation by the selection body/Commission does not create a vested right to appointment. Selection undoubtedly confers upon the candidate a right to fair, non-arbitrary and equitable consideration for appointment, but it does not by itself crystallise into an absolute right to be appointed to the post.

Paragraph 44The Constitution Bench of this Court in Shankarsan Dash (supra), while considering the rights of candidates whose names had been included in a select list, authoritatively held as follows:

Paragraph 45Therefore, from the above discussion it becomes clear that while appointment pursuant to the Commission's selection would be the norm, the Appointing Authority retains ultimate discretion as to whether to make an appointment, even if the selection process is entirely lawful. The Commission's recommendation does not create any vested right in the recommended candidates to claim appointment. However, in a society based on the rule of law, discretion of the Appointing Authority cannot be absolute or arbitrary; it must be informed by valid and germane reasons and based on the relevant statutory rules. REASONS FOR REJECTION TO BE JUSTIFIABLE, HENCE REASONS MUST EXIST ON RECORD:

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

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

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections