Supreme Court Upholds Public Service Commission’s Primacy On Eligibility Determination; Orders Appointment Of State University Registrar
The Bench noted that the government had exceeded its jurisdiction by constituting an independent committee of academic experts to conduct a detailed re-evaluation of Dr. Shailendra Kumar Patel’s teaching experience.
Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has set aside a judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court and directed the State Government to appoint Dr. Shailendra Kumar Patel as Registrar in a State University. The Bench ruled that state governments cannot conduct a de novo or exhaustive inquiry to reassess a candidate's eligibility after the Public Service Commission (PSC) has evaluated and recommended them, especially when statutory rules explicitly attach finality to the Commission's decision.
Interpreting Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh State Universities Service Rules, 1983, the Bench held that the Commission's decision regarding a candidate's eligibility is final. Consequently, the State’s authority to verify documents before issuing an appointment order is limited solely to checking the authenticity or genuineness of credentials or detecting patent, demonstrable deficiencies.
The Court noted that the State Government had exceeded its jurisdiction by constituting an independent committee of academic experts to conduct a detailed re-evaluation of Dr. Patel’s teaching experience, as this illegally encroached upon the PSC's domain. The Court further clarified that if an appointing authority harbors genuine doubts regarding a candidate's eligibility, proper procedure requires referring the matter back to the Commission rather than independently overriding the constitutional selection body.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed,“…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”.
Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel appeared for the appellant and Advocate Ayushi Pandey appeared for the respondent.
The controversy originated from a public recruitment advertisement issued on February 9, 2021, under which Dr. Shailendra Kumar Patel applied for direct recruitment to the post of Registrar under the OBC category. After subject experts scrutinised his credentials and he cleared both the written examination and interview, the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission declared him successful and recommended his name on October 7, 2021.
Despite his selection and a subsequent order by the High Court directing the State to issue an appointment letter, the State Government declined to give him a regular posting. Instead, the State constituted a departmental inquiry committee, which concluded on June 28, 2023, that Dr. Patel lacked the required experience in the prescribed Academic Grade Pay (AGP).
The State subsequently declared him ineligible and temporarily attached him to the office of the Commissioner, Higher Education Department. After both a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the State's authority to reassess eligibility, Dr. Patel appealed to the Supreme Court.
Resolving the appeal, the Supreme Court quashed the committee report dated June 28, 2023, as well as the State's order dated October 31, 2022, officially reaffirming Dr. Patel’s eligibility for the post of Registrar in terms of the 2021 advertisement.
“The Appointing Authority did not place on record any material to show that the Commission’s examination of the eligibility of the Appellant was palpably and demonstrably incorrect or flawed or that there existed some new materials that warranted the re-examination of the question of the Appellant’s eligibility. In our view, the Respondent-State could not have embarked upon an exhaustive exercise to find out that the Appellant was not eligible”, the Bench said.
The State Department was directed to issue the necessary appointment order posting Dr. Patel as Registrar in a State University within three weeks. Furthermore, the Court declared that Dr. Patel is entitled to retrospective service benefits and seniority calculated from the date his co-selectees were appointed, though back wages and pay arrears were denied for the period prior to his provisional appointment on April 10, 2023.
Cause Title: Shailendra Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 902)
Appearances:
Appellant: Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv., Parul Shukla, AOR, Neeraj Choubey, Shubhangi Pandey, Gladson Rodrigues, Keesha Kumar, Riddhi Jain, Adithya K Roy, Advocates.
Respondent: Ayushi Pandey, Aswathi M.K., AOR, Shesh Deshpandey, Bishwajit Dubey, A.A.G., Vinayak Sharma, Ravinder Kumar Yadav, AOR, Yashvardhan Shah, Akshit Awasthi, Kritika Yadav, Vivek Sharma, Ayushi Pandey, Aswathi M.K., AOR, Shesh Deshpandey, Advocates.