2026 INSC 902 Page 1 of 65

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 238 OF 2026

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 23061 of 2025)

SHAILENDRA KUMAR PATEL ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. …RESPONDENT (S)

WITH

CONMT. PET. (C) NO. 765/2025

IN

SLP (C) NO. 22648/2025

SHAILENDRA KUMAR PATEL ...CONTEMPT PETITIONER

VERSUS

DR. S. BHARATHI DASAN . …CONTEMNORS /

RESPONDENT (S)

J U D G M E N T

Page 2 of 65

NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH , J.

INTRODUCTION

1. Leave granted. The present appeal raises important

questions concerning the interplay between the constitutional

exercise of power by Public Service Commissions and the

ultimate discretion of appointing authorities to appoint an

individual. This appeal thus invites this Court to delineate the

contours of their respective powers within the constitutional

architecture governing public employment.

2. In this case, this Court is called upon to determine

whether a candidate selected and recommended by the

Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (for short,

“Commission”) acquires an indefeasible right to appointment

and whether the State Government, prior to the issuance of a

final appointment order, retains the authority to verify and

reassess the candidate's eligibility after being found eligible

and recommended by the Commission. Equally, this Court

must examine whether the inquiry committee constituted by

the State to reassess the eligibility of a recommended

Page 3 of 65

candidate acted within the confines of the governing statutory

framework and whether the conclusions arrived at by it can

withstand judicial scrutiny.

3. The present proceedings arise from the judgment and

order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Division Bench of the

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Appeal No. 360

of 2025, affirming the common judgment and order dated

22.05.2025 rendered by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.

8005 of 2022 and WPS No. 7350 of 2023. The writ petitions

were instituted by the Appellant challenging, firstly, the order

dated 31.10.2022 issued by the State Government that

declared him ineligible for appointment to the post of Registrar

despite his selection and recommendation by the

Commission, and secondly, the order dated 31.08.2023

posting him to the office of the Commissioner, Higher

Education Department, instead of appointing him as a

Registrar in a State University.

4. The Division Bench, concurring with the view taken by

the learned Single Judge, upheld the authority of the State

Page 4 of 65

Government to reassess the Appellant's eligibility prior to the

issuance of the final appointment order and declined to

interfere with the conclusions recorded by the inquiry

committee constituted by the State Government for that

purpose. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the High

Court and contending that the State lacked jurisdiction to

revisit the issue of eligibility after he was found eligible and

selected by the Commission, the Appellant has approached

this Court by way of the present appeal.

5. The Appellant participated in a recruitment process

conducted by the Commission pursuant to a public

advertisement dated 09.02.2021 for appointment to the posts

of Registrar in the State Universities of Chhattisgarh. The

Commission, with the help of subject experts, scrutinised his

qualifications and experience, and, finding him eligible and

meritorious, selected and recommended him for appointment

to the post of Registrar under the OBC category.

6. According to the Appellant, having been declared eligible

by the constitutional selection body and having subsequently

Page 5 of 65

also been found suitable by the Departmental Promotion

Committee for promotion to the same post, the State

Government lacked the authority to reopen and redetermine

the issue of his eligibility. The Appellant further contends that

the State's inquiry into his eligibility exceeded the limited

scope of document verification contemplated by the applicable

rules and earlier orders of the High Court, and that the

subsequent decision declaring him ineligible and posting him

outside the State university administration was arbitrary,

contrary to the statutory scheme governing the post of

Registrar, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution.

7. Per contra, the Respondents contend that the mere

inclusion of a candidate's name in the select list or

recommendation by the Commission does not confer an

indefeasible right to appointment. They contend that the

Appointing Authority remains duty-bound to satisfy itself

regarding a selected candidate's eligibility before issuing the

final appointment order, particularly where the Commission's

Page 6 of 65

recommendation is expressly made subject to verification of

original documents and sa tisfaction regarding eligibility.

According to the Respondents, upon scrutiny of the materials

placed on record and the report submitted by the committee

constituted for that purpose, it was found that the Appellant

did not fulfil the prescribed experience requirement under the

advertisement and the applicable service rules.

8. Thus, the resolution of this controversy necessitates a

careful assessment of two equally significant considerations:

on the one hand, the autonomy and institutional primacy

accorded to the Public Service Commission in matters of

selection and on the other, the responsibility of the appointing

authority to ensure that appointments to public posts are

made strictly in conformity with the governing statutory

framework and only eligible persons are appointed to public

posts.

9. Before examining the rival submissions advanced on

behalf of the parties, it would be apposite to recapitulate, in

Page 7 of 65

some detail, the factual background out of which the present

proceedings have arisen.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

10. The present controversy started with the process for

filling the post of Registrar in the State Universities of

Chhattisgarh. The Appellant, Dr. Shailendra Kumar Patel, has

been serving under the Chhattisgarh State Universities

Service and was appointed as a Deputy Registrar on

26.02.2016. Before joining the University Service, the

Appellant gained teaching and academic administrative

experience in higher educational institutions. According to the

Appellant, he had worked as an Assistant Professor in various

colleges between 2013-2016.

11. On 09.02.2021, the Commission issued an

advertisement inviting applications for direct recruitment to

three posts of Registrar in the State Universities of

Chhattisgarh, comprising one post each for the Unreserved,

Scheduled Caste and Other Backward Classes categories. The

Page 8 of 65

advertisement stipulated the essential qualifications and

experience requirements under Schedule II of the

Chhattisgarh State Universities Service Rules, 1983 (for short,

“Service Rules, 1983” ). The Appellant submitted his

candidature under the OBC category, asserting that he

satisfied the prescribed eligibility conditions.

12. After the Commission and the subject experts

associated with the selection process scrutinised the

applications and verified eligibility, and being satisfied with

his eligibility, the Appellant was permitted to participate in the

recruitment process, which included a written exam and

interviews. Upon completion of the selection process, the

Appellant was declared successful and secured the first

position in the OBC category in the final select list published

by the Commission on 30.09.2021. Thereafter, by

communication dated 07.10.2021, the Commission forwarded

its recommendation to the State Government for issuance of

appointment orders. The recommendation stipulated that

before issuing the appointment letter, the appointing

Page 9 of 65

authority was required to verify original documents and

satisfy itself regarding eligibility for the post.

13. Despite the Appellant's selection and

recommendation by the Commission, no appointment order

was issued in his favour. The Appellant submitted

representations to the competent authorities seeking issuance

of the appointment order.

14. In the meantime, a Departmental Promotion

Committee was convened on 10.03.2022 for considering

promotion of persons from the post of Deputy Registrar to that

of Registrar, wherein the Appellant was also found suitable for

promotion. However, owing to alleged non-availability of

vacancies, no recommendation for his promotion was made.

Pending regular appointment, the Appellant was entrusted

with the additional charge of Registrar, Pt. Ravishankar

Shukla University, Raipur, by order dated 25.05.2022, and he

began to discharge the functions attached to the said office.

15. Aggrieved by the inaction of the State Government in

issuing the appointment order despite his selection and

Page 10 of 65

recommendation by the Commission, the Appellant

approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh by filing WPS No.

780 of 2022. By order dated 29.08.2022, the learned Single

Judge directed the State Government to is sue the

appointment order in favour of the Appellant within a period

of four weeks.

16. Instead of issuing the appointment order in

compliance with the aforesaid direction, the State Government

undertook an exercise to verify the Appellant's eligibility and

constituted a committee for examining the issue. Relying upon

the report submitted by the said committee, the State

Government, by order dated 31.10.2022, declared the

Appellant ineligible for appointment to the post of Registrar on

the ground that he did not possess the requisite experience

prescribed under the advertisement and governing rules.

17. Challenging the order dated 31.10.2022 declaring

him ineligible, the Appellant instituted another writ petition,

WPS No. 8005 of 2022, before the High Court. The High Court,

by order dated 17.11.2022, directed that any appointment

Page 11 of 65

made to the post of Registrar during the pendency of the

proceedings shall abide by the final outcome of the writ

petition.

18. In the meantime, the Respondent-State instituted

Review Petition No. 11 of 2023, while the Appellant initiated

Contempt Case No. 1 of 2023 alleging non-compliance with

the direction issued by the High Court for issuance of the

appointment order. By a common order dated 31.03.2023

passed in the aforementioned review and contempt

proceedings, the High Court, without expressing any opinion

on the maintainability of the writ petition, directed the

Respondents to issue a provisional appointment order in

favour of the Appellant within a period of ten days. The High

Court further granted liberty to the Respondent-State to

conduct an inquiry, if considered necessary, for verification of

the documents submitted by the Appellant while participating

in the selection process for appointment to the post of

Registrar. The matters were thereafter directed to be listed on

17.04.2023.

Page 12 of 65

19. Pursuant thereto, the State Government issued a

provisional appointment order dated 10.04.2023 appointing

the Appellant to the post of Registrar. Significantly, however,

the order did not specify any place of posting, thereby

preventing the Appellant from assuming charge as a Registrar

in any State University. The review petition and contempt

proceedings were subsequently disposed of on 17.04.2023

after noting the issuance of the provisional appointment order.

20. Despite repeated representations seeking a posting

order in a State University so as to enable him to assume

charge as Registrar, no such posting order was issued by the

Respondent-State. Consequently, the Appellant moved an

application in the pending writ proceedings WPS No.

8005/2022, seeking appropriate directions for his posting in

accordance with law. The High Court, by order dated

01.09.2023, expressed concern over the continued failure of

the Respondents to assign a place of posting to the Appellant

despite issuance of the provisional appointment order.

Page 13 of 65

21. Thereafter, instead of posting the Appellant against

any available vacancy in the cadre of Registrar in the State

Universities, the Respondent-State, by order dated

31.08.2023, posted him on a temporary basis (till further

orders) in the office of the Commissioner, Higher Education

Department.

22. The Appellant, by representation dated 04.09.2023,

informed the Respondent-State that vacancies to the post of

Registrar continued to exist in various State Universities,

including those at Raigarh, Bilaspur, Bastar and Raipur. He

reiterated his request for posting against a regular vacancy of

Registrar in accordance with the provisions of the

Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short

“1973 Adhiniyam”) and the Service Rules, 1983.

23. Aggrieved by the order dated 31.08.2023 posting him

to the office of the Commissioner, Higher Education

Department, and the continued failure of the Respondent-

State to assign him a place of posting as Registrar in any State

University, the Appellant instituted a fresh writ proceeding by

Page 14 of 65

filing WPS No. 7350 of 2023 before the High Court. The

Appellant sought quashing of the order dated 31.08.2023 and

a direction for his posting against a regular vacancy of

Registrar in a State University established under the 1973

Adhiniyam. The Appellant also challenged the inquiry report

and subsequent orders that declared him ineligible for

appointment. During the pendency of the writ petition, the

High Court, by interim order dated 19.09.2023, directed the

parties to maintain status quo and further called upon the

State to explain the source of power under which a person

appointed as Registrar could be attached to the Secretariat or

the office of the Commissioner, particularly when the

Registrar is an officer of the University under the 1973

Adhiniyam.

24. The Respondents placed reliance upon the

recommendation letter dated 07.10.2021, forwarded by the

Commission, contending that the recommendation was

expressly made subject to verification of original documents

and satisfaction regarding the eligibility of the selected

Page 15 of 65

candidates before issuance of the appointment order. The

Respondents referred to the report dated 28.06.2023

submitted by a committee constituted by the Higher

Education Department pursuant to the liberty granted by the

High Court in the review and contempt proceedings. The

committee, comprising of three senior postgraduate principals

of government colleges, had examined the Appellant's service

particulars, Academic Grade Pay progression and teaching

experience and ultimately concluded that he did not possess

the requisite period of experience in the prescribed Academic

Grade Pay scales to qualify for appointment as Registrar.

Proceeding on the basis of the said report, the Respondents

maintained that the Appellant's candidature had rightly been

treated as invalid and that no enforceable right to

appointment accrued in his favour. It was further asserted

that the order dated 10.04.2023 was merely a provisional

appointment order issued in compliance with the directions of

the High Court and that the posting of the Appellant to the

office of the Commissioner, Higher Education Department was

Page 16 of 65

only a temporary arrangement pending completion of the

scrutiny process. It was also brought on record that a separate

writ petition, being WPS No. 2874 of 2023, had been instituted

by one Dr. Naresh Kant Chandan challenging the provisional

appointment order issued in favour of the Appellant and that

the said proceedings were pending consideration before the

High Court.

25. The materials placed on record further disclose that

following submission of the committee report dated

28.06.2023, the Appellant sought a detailed clarification vide

letter dated 04.03.2024, thereby disputing the conclusions

recorded in the said report. The Appellant asserted, inter alia,

that while computing his experience, the committee had failed

to take into account the period of service rendered by him as

Deputy Registrar after his appointment through direct

recruitment in March 2016.

26. Significantly, during the pendency of the proceedings,

the Respondent-State sought clarification from the

Commission regarding the Appellant's eligibility. In response,

Page 17 of 65

the Commission, by communication dated 28.03.2024, stated

that prior to the interview, the educational qualifications and

experience of the candidates had been scrutinized by subject

experts and only those found eligible were permitted to

participate in the interview process and that, upon completion

of the selection process, the names of the selected candidates,

including that of the Appellant, had been recommended to the

Higher Education Department by communication dated

07.10.2021 for further action regarding appointment. The

Commission noted that no action remained pending at its level

and that matters relating to issuance of appointment orders

fell within the domain of the Department. The Commission

accordingly reaffirmed the determination of eligibility made

during the recruitment process.

27. By a common judgment and order dated 22.05.2025,

the learned Single Judge dismissed WPS No. 8005 of 2022 and

WPS No. 7350 of 2023, thereby upholding the authority of the

Respondent-State to verify the Appellant's eligibility before

issuance of the final appointment order and concluded that

Page 18 of 65

the Appellant did not possess the requisite experience

prescribed for appointment to the post of Registrar under the

applicable statutory framework. Relying upon the decisions of

this Court in Commissioner of Police v. Umesh Kumar ,

(2020) 10 SCC 448 and Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan

High Court, (2025) 2 SCC 1, the learned Single Judge held

that mere selection does not confer an indefeasible right to

appointment and that a selected candidate may be denied

appointment if found ineligible upon verification.

Consequently, the challenge to the order declaring the

Appellant ineligible as well as to the order posting him to the

office of the Commissioner, Higher Education Department

came to be rejected.

28. Following the dismissal of the writ petitions, the

Respondent-State, by order dated 28.05.2025, relieved the

Appellant from the post of Deputy Registrar and directed him

to report to the Directorate of Higher Education, Indravati

Bhawan, Nava Raipur. It was also indicated that departmental

proceedings were proposed to be initiated against him.

Page 19 of 65

29. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single

Judge, the Appellant preferred Writ Appeal No. 360 of 2025

before the Division Bench of the High Court on 29.05.2025.

The Division Bench admitted the appeal on 03.06.2025 and,

as an interim measure, directed the parties to maintain status

quo in respect of one post of Registrar in the State Universities

pending adjudication of the appeal.

30. However, by judgment and order dated 17.06.2025,

the Division Bench dismissed Writ Appeal No. 360 of 2025 and

affirmed the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge.

The Division Bench held that the Respondent-State was

competent to scrutinise the Appellant's eligibility after his

selection by the Commission. Taking note of the report of the

committee constituted after the orders passed in the review

and contempt proceedings, the Division Bench accepted the

conclusion that the Appellant did not possess the requisite

eligibility for appointment as Registrar under the Service

Rules, 1983. Thus, the Division Bench held that no illegality

had been committed in declining to post the Appellant as

Page 20 of 65

Registrar and in assigning him duties in the office of the

Commissioner, Higher Education Department. Reiterating the

settled principle that selection by itself does not confer an

indefeasible right to appointment, the Division Bench found

no ground warranting interference with the judgment of the

learned Single Judge.

31. Aggrieved by the concurrent judgments of the High

Court, the Appellant has approached this Court by way of the

present appeal, raising questions concerning the extent of

finality attaching to the determination of eligibility by the

Public Service Co mmission, scope of post -selection

verification by the Appointing Authority, legality of the inquiry

committee's report, and permissibility of posting a selected

candidate to a post other than the one for which recruitment

was conducted.

32. While issuing notice on 25.08.2025, this Court

directed that the status of the parties as existing prior to the

passing of the impugned judgment shall continue during the

pendency of the present proceedings.

Page 21 of 65

33. It is further brought on record that during the

pendency of the present appeal, the Appellant instituted

Contempt Petition (C) No. 765 of 2025 alleging wilful

disobedience of the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by this

Court. According to the Appellant, despite the direction

requiring maintenance of the status prevailing prior to the

impugned judgment, he was not permitted to resume his

duties in the capacity of Deputy Registrar in which he had

been functioning before the impugned judgment came to be

passed. The said contempt proceedings remain pending

consideration and are taken up along with the present Appeal.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

34. It has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant that:

i. That the Respondent-State acted wholly without

jurisdiction in reopening and re-examining the issue

of the Appellant's eligibility after he had been

declared eligible and selected by the Commission. It

is contended that Rule 10 of the Service Rules, 1983

accords finality to the determination of eligibility

made by the Commission and, therefore, once the

Page 22 of 65

Commission found the Appellant eligible and

recommended him for appointment, it was not open

to the Respondent-State to undertake a fresh inquiry

into the very same issue. Reliance is placed on the

principle that where a statute prescribes a particular

manner for doing an act, it must be done in that

manner alone and in no other manner [Patna

Improvement Trust v. Smt. Lakshmi Devi, AIR

1963 SC 1077; Tata Chemicals Ltd. v.

Commissioner of Customs (Preventive),

Jamnagar, (2015) 11 SCC 628].

ii. That the Appellant's eligibility had repeatedly

been affirmed by competent expert bodies, including

the Commission at the stage of direct recruitment

and the Departmental Promotion Committee while

considering his promotion. Reliance was also placed

upon the communication dated 28.03.2024 issued

by the Commission reiterating that the Appellant's

qualifications and experience had bee n duly

scrutinized by subject experts and found to be in

conformity with the prescribed eligibility criteria.

According to the Appellant, such consistent expert

determination could not have been displaced by a

committee constituted by the Respondent-State.

Page 23 of 65

iii. That the liberty granted by the High Court in the

review and contempt proceedings was confined only

to verification of the authenticity and correctness of

the documents submitted by the Appellant and did

not authorize a de-novo examination of his eligibility.

It is contended that the order dated 31.03.2023

permitting verification of documents was

subsequently merged in the final order dated

17.04.2023 whereby the review petition was

dismissed and the earlier direction requiring

issuance of the appointment order was effectively

affirmed. According to the Appellant, the

Respondent-State could not rely upon the said order

to constitute a committee for reassessing an issue

that had already attained finality.

iv. That the Respondent-State is precluded from

reopening the issue of eligibility in view of the earlier

writ proceedings in WPS No. 780/2022 culminating

in the order dated 29.08.2022 directing issuance of

the appointment order and the subsequent

withdrawal of Writ Appeal No. 613 of 2022 preferred

against the said order. Thus, the impugned action is

contrary to settled principles of judicial discipline

and finality of litigation.

Page 24 of 65

v. That the finding regarding the Appellant's

ineligibility is factually unsustainable and contrary

to the material on record. The committee constituted

by the Respondent-State arbitrarily excluded

substantial portions of the Appellant's teaching and

administrative experience, including his service as

Deputy Registrar, while reassessing his eligibility

and upon a proper application of the Government

Notification dated 30.03.2010 revising pay scales

and corresponding Academic Grade Pay (AGP)

structures, the Appellant's pre-revised pay scale of

₹12,000–18,300 which clearly corresponded to AGP

₹8,000, thereby giving him more than the minimum

eight years' experience prescribed under the

advertisement. It was submitted that the State's

assertion that the Appellant did not possess the

requisite AGP of ₹6,000/₹8,000 is contrary to the

applicable pay revision notification, service records

and experience certificates.

vi. That the Respondent-State adopted inconsistent

standards while assessing eligibility, inasmuch as

similarly situated candidates were found eligible and

appointed as Registrars whereas the Appellant alone

was denied appointment. Particular reliance was

placed on the appointment of one Rajesh Lalwani,

Page 25 of 65

whose experience in a lower pay scale was treated as

equivalent to AGP ₹7,000, while the Appellant's

higher pay scale corresponding to AGP ₹8,000 was

disregarded. It was contended that such unequal

treatment is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and

16 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed upon the

decisions of the High Court in Anoop Mishra v.

State of Chhattisgarh, 2015 SCC OnLine Chh

1707, and of this Court in Shankarsan Dash v.

Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 and Manoj Manu

v. Union of India, (2013) 12 SCC 171, to contend

that while a selected candidate may not possess an

indefeasible right to appointment, appointment

cannot be denied on arbitrary, discriminatory or

irrational grounds, particularly when the Appellant

had already been issued a provisional appointment

order pursuant to judicial directions.

vii. That once a candidate has been duly selected

through a lawful recruitment process, any decision

denying appointment must be justified by the State

on the basis of cogent, rational and legally

sustainable reasons. According to learned counsel,

the burden lay upon the Respondent-State to justify

its decision not to appoint the Appellant despite his

selection and the issuance of a provisional

Page 26 of 65

appointment order. It was argued that the

Respondent-State has failed to discharge this

burden.

viii. It is thus submitted that the Respondent-State

has, through successive administrative actions,

frustrated the implementation of judicial directions

issued in favour of the Appellant and denied him the

benefits of appointment despite his selection by the

Commission and the issuance of a provision al

appointment order.

ix. It is accordingly urged that the impugned

judgments of the learned Single Judge and the

Division Bench be set aside and appropriate

directions be issued for posting the Appellant as

Registrar in a State University.

SUBMISSIONS ON BE HALF OF RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3

35. Per contra, following submissions were made on behalf

of the Respondents:

i. That the Appellant did not fulfil the eligibility

criteria prescribed for appointment to the post of

Registrar under the advertisement dated 09.02.2021

and the applicable statutory framework. Upon

verification of the Appellant's credentials, it was

Page 27 of 65

revealed that he lacked the requisite teaching and

administrative experience prescribed for the post, as

also concluded in the report dated 28.06.2023

submitted by the inquiry committee constituted by the

Higher Education Department.

ii. That the recommend ation made by the

Commission did not confer any vested right to

appointment upon the Appellant. Reliance is placed on

the communication dated 07.10.2021, whereby the

Commission expressly stipulated that appointment

could be made only after verification of documents and

satisfaction regarding eligibility. It is therefore

submitted that the Appointing Authority was competent

to independently verify the Appellant's eligibility before

issuance of the final appointment order.

iii. That neither the order dated 29.08.2022 passed

in WPS No. 780 of 2022 nor the subsequent withdrawal

of Writ Appeal No. 613 of 2022 foreclosed the

Respondent-State from examining the Appellant's

eligibility. The order dated 31.03.2023 passed in Review

Petition No. 11 of 2023 and Contempt Case No. 1 of

2023 expressly permitted the State to conduct an

inquiry and verify the documents the Appellant

submitted while participating in the selection process.

The inquiry subsequently undertaken by the State is

Page 28 of 65

therefore stated to be within the scope of the liberty

granted by the High Court.

iv. That it is a settled principle of service

jurisprudence that mere inclusion of a candidate's

name in a select list does not confer an indefeasible

right to appointment. Even after selection, appointment

may legitimately be denied if the selected candidate is

found not to fulfil the prescribed eligibility conditions.

Reliance is placed upon the decisions of this Court in

Punjab State Electricity Board v. Malkiat Singh ,

(2005) 9 SCC 22 and Tej Prakash Pathak (supra).

v. Defending the posting order dated 31.08.2023,

learned counsel submits that the Appellant's placement

in the office of the Commissioner, Higher Education

Department was an administrative arrangement made

in exercise of the executive powers of the State under

Article 162 of the Constitution.

vi. That the Appellant cannot claim parity with

other candidates, including Rajesh Lalwani, since each

candidature was assessed independently on its own

merits. It is therefore submitted that no case of

discrimination is made out.

vii. On the aforesaid grounds, it is submitted that

the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench rightly

Page 29 of 65

upheld the action of the Respondent-State and that the

present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

36. Before proceeding further, it may be noticed that

vide order dated 08.01.2026, this Court allowed I.A. No.

285031 of 2025 filed by Shri Naresh Kant Chandan seeking

intervention in the present proceedings. The intervenor claims

to be a candidate placed in the supplementary/waiting list

prepared pursuant to the recruitment process for the post of

Registrar and asserts a consequential interest in the event the

Appellant's candidature is held to be invalid. Learned counsel

appearing for the intervenor was accordingly heard, who

supported the impugned judgment as well as the stand taken

by the Respondent-State.

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

37. In the backdrop of the above, the following questions

arise for consideration before this Court:

i. Whether a candidate selected and recommended

by the Commission acquires an indefeasible right to

Page 30 of 65

appointment merely by virtue of such selection and

recommendation?

ii. Whether, notwithstanding the recommendation

made by the Commission, the Respondent-State, as

the Appointing Authority, was competent to verify

and reassess the Appellant's eligibility prior to

issuance of the final appointment order, particularly

in view of the stipulation contained in the

Commission's communication dated 07.10.2021?

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?

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. I: Whether selection by the Chhattisgarh Public

Service Commission conferred an indefeasible right to

appointment upon the Appellant?

PROCESS OF RECOMMENDATION MADE BY A PUBLIC

SERVICE COMMISSION:

38. This issue requires an examination of the

Commission's constitutional and legal position vis-à-vis the

Page 31 of 65

Appointing Authority. Ordinarily, the Appointing Authority is

vested with the right and authority to decide on appointment

at all stages of any appointment, be it the advertisement, the

selection process or the final appointment, as it is involved

directly or indirectly in all these stages of appointment.

39. In our country, the Founding Fathers of the Indian

Constitution, relying on the experience of other countries with

democratic institutions, intended to secure an efficient civil

service based on the rule of law. This is the genesis for setting

up autonomous and independent bodies like the Public

Service Commission at the Centre and in the States under

Article 315 of the Constitution. The values of independence,

impartiality and integrity are the basic determinants of the

constitutional conception of Public Service Commissions and

their role and functions. It was felt that for the efficient

functioning of a democracy, it is imperative that the Public

Service Commissions are manned by people of the highest

skill and irreproachable integrity, so that the selections to

various public posts can be immunised from all sorts of

Page 32 of 65

extraneous factors like political pressure or personal

favouritism and are made solely on considerations of merit.

[See Ram Ashray Yadav (Dr), Chairman, Bihar Public

Service Commission, In Re, (2000) 4 SCC 309; Ram Kumar

Kashyap v. Union of India, (2009) 9 SCC 378.]

40. The mandate of the Public Service Commissions has

been extended to most civil posts of significance and is not

confined only to organised central or state civil services. The

Public Service Commissions are expected to adopt a fair and

judicious selection process to ensure that the most deserving

and meritorious candidates are inducted into the services of

the State. Thus, under our constitutional scheme, the

absolute right of the state employers has been circumscribed

by the constitution of Public Service Commissions, not only to

assist the State but also to bring transparency in the selection

process.

41. However, the Commission's role is essentially

advisory/recommendatory, and the Appointing Authority has

the ultimate discretion to accept or not accept such

Page 33 of 65

recommendations for appointment. This discretion whether to

accept or not to accept the recommendation of the

Commission and whether to appoint the recommended

candidates, is, however, not absolute but is circumscribed by

the relevant rules and must not be vitiated by arbitrariness.

In H. Mukherjee (Dr) v. Union of India, 1994 Supp

(1) SCC 250, it was held as follows:

“8. It is obvious from what we have stated

above that this Court clearly observed

in Jatinder Kumar case that the selection

made by the Commission was only

recommendatory in nature and it was open

to the Government to either accept the

recommendation or to depart therefrom.

Observations on which the Tribunal relies

merely convey that if the Government does

not depart from the recommendation of the

Commission the Government must make

the appointments strictly adhering to the

order of merit as recommended by the

Commission. It cannot disturb the order of

merit according to its own sweet will except

for good reasons, namely, bad conduct or

character but that does not mean that the

Government cannot depart from the

recommendation of the Commission. If it

departs from the recommendation it must

ultimately comply with the requirement of

Article 323 of the Constitution. There is

nothing in that article or in the rules to

suggest that the Government cannot take

Page 34 of 65

into consideration the developments

subsequent to the selection made by the

UPSC. Such a view would not be in public

interest and may lead to serious

complications if the Government is enjoined

to make the appointment notwithstanding

certain serious matters having come to its

notice subsequent to the recommendation

made by the Commission………..”

42. Keeping the aforesaid constitutional architecture in

mind, we will proceed to examine the matter further.

We shall now briefly explain what occurs before the

Commission makes a recommendation. The Commission

invites persons to apply for specific posts through a public

notification/advertisement, which contains the necessary

information about the number of vacancies/posts,

reservation, eligibility criteria, mode of selection, etc. After

receiving the applications, the Commission examines the

candidates' eligibility with the help of experts as per the

relevant service rules.

Thereafter, the Commission assesses the candidates'

suitability by examining their knowledge in the concerned and

relevant subjects, their aptitude, personality, etc., with the

Page 35 of 65

help of domain experts. To evaluate suitability, it may adopt

various tests, written exams, and/or interviews, as per the

relevant service rules and the norms set by the Commission,

and thus determine the candidates' merit.

After evaluating the candidates' merits, the

Commission prepares the select list based on inter se merit,

which is then declared publicly. The Commission then

forwards this select list to the Appointing Authority/State for

appointment. Upon receiving the Commission's

recommendation, the Appointing Authority takes necessary

steps to appoint the selected candidates in terms of merit and

as per the posts/vacancies advertised.

NO INDEFEASIBLE RIGHT TO APPOINTMENT:

43. It 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

Page 36 of 65

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.

44. The 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:

“7. It is not correct to say that if a number of

vacancies are notified for appointment and

adequate number of candidates are found fit, the

successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right

to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied.

Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an

invitation to qualified candidates to apply for

recruitment and on their selection they do not

acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant

recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no

legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies.

However, it does not mean that the State has the

licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The

decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken

bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the

vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is

bound to respect the comparative merit of the

candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and

no discrimination can be permitted. This correct

position has been consistently followed by this

Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the

decisions in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander

Page 37 of 65

Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488

: (1974) 1 SCR 165] , Neelima Shangla v. State of

Haryana [(1986) 4 SCC 268 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 759] ,

or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab [(1985) 1 SCC

122 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 174 : (1985) 1 SCR 899] .”

The principle enunciated in Shankarsan Dash (supra)

that the State is not bound to fill up any or all vacancies, has

consistently been reiterated in subsequent decisions of this

Court. In Commissioner of Police v. Umesh Kumar (supra)

this Court reaffirmed that inclusion in a select list does not

confer a vested right to appointment. More recently, the

Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra),

observed:

“64. Thus, in light of the decision in Shankarsan Das

(supra), a candidate placed in the select list gets no

indefeasible right to be appointed even if vacancies

are available. Similar was the view taken by this

Court in Subash Chander Marwaha (supra) wher e

against 15 vacancies only top 7 from the select list

were appointed. But there is a caveat. The State or

its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny

appointment to a selected candidate. Therefore,

when a challenge is laid to State's action in respect

of denying appointment to a selected candidate, the

burden is on the State to justify its decision for not

making appointment from the Select List.”

Page 38 of 65

45. Therefore, 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 :

46. This right to reject the recommendation of the

Commission can pertain to all stages of the recruitment

process, as below:

(i) Even if the selection process is lawful and the

select list is valid, the Appointing Authority can still

decline to make an appointment under the select list

Page 39 of 65

because of a change in government policy insisting on

higher standards of competence. [See State of

Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha , (1974) 3

SCC 220, wherein it was held that where

appointments are made by selection from a number

of eligible candidates, it is open to the Government to

fix a score which is much higher than the one

required for more eligibility, with a view to maintain

high standards of competence, as it essentially a

matter of administrative policy, and if the State

Government thinks that in the interest of judicial

competence, persons securing less than 55% of

marks in the competitive examination should not be

selected for appointment, those who got less than

55% have no right to claim that the selections be

made of also those candidates who obtained less than

the minimum fixed by the State Government].

(ii) The Appointing Authority can also refuse to

make an appointment if the selection process is

Page 40 of 65

vitiated by illegalities such as fraud, manipulation,

nepotism, leakage of exam papers, rigging of exam

results, corruption, adoption of unfair means, etc.,

the facts of which must be well established.

(iii) The Appointing Authority may decline to appoint

any recommended candidate if, on necessary

verification of documents, it finds that the candidate

is not eligible. We will deal with this issue in detail

hereinafter, as this is the principal issue involved in

this proceeding.

47. It 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.

Page 41 of 65

48. In this regard, we may also recall the decision in Asha

Kaul (Mrs.) & Anr. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir &

Ors. (1993) 2 SCC 573 wherein it was held as follows:

6. It is true that the government is the appointing

authority for the Munsifs but it is misleading to

assert that in the matter of selection and

appointment the government has an absolute

power. Such an argument does violence to the

constitutional scheme. The Constitution has

created a Public Service Commission and

assigned it the function of conducting

examinations for appointments to the services of

the Union or to the services of the State, as the

case may be. According to Article 320 clause (1)

this is the primary function of the Commission.

The Government is directed to consult the Public

Service Commission on all matters relating to

methods of recruitment to civil services and to

civil posts and on the principles to be followed in

making appointment to civil services and posts

and on the suitability of candidates for such

appointment, among other matters. An

examination of Articles 317 to 320 makes it

evident that the Constitution contemplates the

Commission to be an independent and effective

body outside the Governmental control. This is

an instance of application of the basic tenet of

democratic form of government viz., diffusion of

governing power, The idea is not to allow the

concentration of governing power in the hands

of one person, authority or organ. It is in the light

of this constitutional scheme that one has to

Page 42 of 65

construe Rules 39 and 41 of the 1967 Rules.

They read as follows:

"39.Final List.-- The list of selected

candidates after it is approved shall be

published by the Government Gazette and

a copy thereof shall be sent to the court

along with the waiting list, if any, furnished

by the commission for record in their office.”

“41. Security to the list.-- The list and the

waiting list of the selected candidates shall

remain in operation for a period of one year

from the date of its publication in the

Government Gazette or till it is exhausted

by appointment of the candidates

whichever is earlier, provided that nothing

in this rule shall apply to the list and the

waiting list prepared as a result of the

examination held in 1981 which will be in

operation till the list or the waiting list is

exhausted."

7. Construed in the above light, Rule 39, in our

opinion, does not confer an absolute power upon

the government to disapprove or cancel the

select list sent by the Public Service Commission.

Where, however, the government is satisfied,

after due enquiry that the selection has been

vitiated either on account of violation of a

fundamental procedural requirement or is

vitiated by consideration of

corruption, favourtism or nepotism, it can refuse

to approve the select list. In such a case, the

government is bound to record the reasons for

its action, and produce the same before a Court,

Page 43 of 65

if and when summoned to do so, apart from

placing the same before the legislature as

required by clause (2) of Article 323. Indeed,

clause (2) of Article 323 obliges the Governor of

a State to ray a copy of the annual report

received from the commission before the

legislature "together with a memorandum

explaining, as respect the cases, if any, where

the advice of the commission was not accepted

(and) the reasons for such non-acceptance."

Evidently, this is meant as a check upon the

power of the government. This provision too

militates against the theory of absolute power in

the Government to disapprove or reject the

recommendations of the Commission. For the

same reason, it must be held that the

Government cannot pick and choose candidates

out of the list. Of course, where in respect of any

particular candidate any material is discovered

disclosing his involvement in any criminal

activity, the government can always refuse to

appoint such person but this would not be a case

touching the select list prepared and

recommended by the Commission. It is equally

not open to the government to approve a part of

the list and disapprove the balance. In this case,

it may be remembered that the government itself

had asked for a list of twenty and the

commission had sent a list of twenty. (We are

not concerned with the waiting list sent by the

Commission, at this stage). It could not have

been approved in part and rejected in part. The

number of vacancies available on the date of

approval and publication of the list is not

material. By merely approving the list of twenty,

there was no obligation upon the government to

Page 44 of 65

appoint them forthwith. Their appointment

depended upon the availability of vacancies. A

reading of Rule 41 makes this aspect clear. The

list remains valid for one year from the date of

its approval and publication. If within such one

year, any of the candidates therein is not

appointed, the list lapses and a fresh list has to

be prepared. In this case, no doubt, a number of

complaints appears to have been received by the

government about the selection process. We

have seen the note file placed before us. It refers

to certain facts and complaints. But if the

Government wanted to disapprove or reject the

list, it ought to have done so within a reasonable

time of the receipt of the select list and for

reasons to be recorded. Not having done that

and having approved the list partly (thirteen out

of twenty names) they cannot put forward any

ground for not approving the remaining list.

Indeed, when it approved the list to the extent of

thirteen, it ought to have approved the entire list

of twenty or have disapproved the entire list of

twenty. The objections the Government have

pertain to the very process of selection i.e., to the

entire list, and not individually to any of the

remaining seven candidates.

49. From the above discussion, it can be indubitably said

that while the State is not bound to act mechanically on the

recommendation of the Commission and issue appointment

orders solely on the basis of such recommendation, any

Page 45 of 65

decision to withhold or deny appointment is required to be

supported by lawful, rational and non-arbitrary reasons and

must be done in accordance with the applicable statutory

framework and rules. Therefore, for the Appointing Authority

to reject a recommendation by the Commission, it must

provide lawful, clear, and cogent reasons and account for

them before the Court of law when questioned.

APPLICABILITY IN THE PRESENT CASE:

50. In the present case, we are dealing primarily with the

issue of refusal of the Respondent-State to appoint the

Appellant on the ground that he is not eligible for the post of

Registrar.

51. The Respondent-State independently constituted a

committee of experts to examine the eligibility of the Appellant

and rejected the Appellant’s candidature on the ground that

in their independent assessment, they found that he did not

fulfil the requisite teaching experience. The finding of the

Respondent-State in holding/declaring that the Appellant is

not eligible is based on a detailed examination of the teaching

Page 46 of 65

experience of the Appellant in various institutions drawing

varying salaries. The committee of experts examined the

Appellant's teaching experience, taking into account the

various Academic Grade Pays in different institutions and

comparing these pay grades with what the members of the

committee considered appropriate or equivalent. No

indisputable official criterion or parameter formed the basis of

their finding. Thus, the exercise involved an element of

subjectivity. It was not based on any finding that there were

materials which clearly demonstrated that the Appellant did

not fulfil the eligibility criteria, nor was it based on any finding

that the process of evaluation of eligibility of the Appellant by

the Commission was fundamentally flawed, corrupt, or

vitiated by mala fides, fraud, illegality, etc. It is also not the

case of the Respondent-State that there was any new material

that had been brought to the notice of the authorities which

would clearly demonstrate that the appellant was not eligible.

The expert committee's finding was based on materials

already examined by the Commission. In fact, the committee

Page 47 of 65

of experts had to resort to a detailed fact-finding exercise on

the materials already examined by the Commission before

coming to their conclusion.

52. 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. This leads us to the next

connected issue.

ISSUE NO. II: Whether the Respondent-State was competent

to verify and reassess the Appellant's eligibility prior to

issuance of the final appointment order?

53. The Appellant's principal submission is that once the

Commission declared him eligible, permitted him to

participate in the interview process , and ultimately

recommended his name for appointment to the post of

Page 48 of 65

Registrar, the issue of eligibility stood conclusively determined

by virtue of Rule 10 of the Service Rules, 1983 and could not

thereafter be reopened by the Respondent-State.

Rule 10 of the Service Rules, 1983, provides as follows:

“10. Commission's decision about the eligibility

of candidates Final. — The decision of the

Commission as to the eligibility or otherwise of a

candidate for selection shall be final and no

candidate to whom a certificate of admission has not

been issued by the Commission shall be interviewed

by them.”

54. As discussed above, the Commission’s role in the

selection process is twofold. First, it examines candidates'

eligibility and then their suitability.

When the Commission examines a candidate’s

eligibility as per the statutory provisions, it involves an

objective assessment with the help of experts as to whether

the candidate fulfils eligibility criteria or not. Once the

Commission is satisfied that the candidate is eligible, it will

assess her on merit to determine whether she is suitable for

the post advertised.

Page 49 of 65

At the time of assessing the merit/suitability of the

candidate, the Commission undertakes an exercise by proper

application of mind with the help of subject experts,

subjecting the candidates to written and/or oral examinations

and sometimes to personality tests, etc as per requirements of

the statutory rules or as per the well-laid-down norms of the

Commission.

55. Regarding 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

Page 50 of 65

area of consideration having been taken away statutorily from

the Appointing Authority and specifically assigned to the

Commission.

56. Consequently, in the light of Rule 10, if the

Respondent-State had any reservations about the eligibility of

the candidate, the Appointing Authority could have returned

the recommendation the Commission with reasons for its

view. If the Commission concurred with the view, the

Appointing Authority would then be within its right to refuse

appointment to the recommended candidate who was found

subsequently ineligible by the Appointing Authority.

57. This, 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 cand idate's

eligibility from a limited perspective, as discussed above. If the

Appointing Authority detects a fundamental error which is

Page 51 of 65

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.

58. In 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

Page 52 of 65

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.

59. The Respondent-State sought to overcome this legal

hurdle by contending that the recommendation letter dated

07.10.2021 issued by the Commission contained a stipulation

that granted them the authority to re-examine the Appellant’s

eligibility, which in our view appears to be without any

substance. The relevant portion of the communication dated

07.10.2021 of the Commission reads as follows:

“Before issuing the appointment letter, verification of

all original educational certificates and other

documents of the candidates and, i n case of

candidates belonging to the physically handicapped

category, their disability certificates, shall

compulsorily be undertaken. Further action

regarding appointment shall be taken only after

verification and satisfaction regarding the eligibility

of the candidate for the post.”

(emphasis added)

This communication, in our view, has to be read in

the light of Rule 10. The words ‘verification’ and ‘satisfaction’

in the communication must be understood within the scope of

Page 53 of 65

the constitutional scheme and the statutory rules and cannot

render Rule 10 redundant or otiose. The executive order

cannot have the effect of diluting a statutory provision. We

have already held that the Appointing Authority, having final

discretion to appoint a recommended candidate, must also be

satisfied that the candidate is eligible, as only someone who is

eligible can hold a public post.

But as discussed above, such discretion of the

Appointing Authority is circumscribed by the constitutional

scheme and the relevant statutory provisions. Thus,

verification as contemplated under the aforesaid

communication could have been undertaken only to verify the

genuineness of the documents, or if the Commission had

made a patently wrong determination, or if new materials were

brought on record clearly showing that the candidate is not

eligible.

Thus, if, at the time of verification, it is found that the

documents were fraudulently acquired or forged, that there

was patent illegality in the determination by the Commission,

Page 54 of 65

or that new documents or materials emerged that clearly show

the candidate is not eligible, the Appointing Authority may

decline to accept the Commission's recommendation. But in

light of Rule 10, it is not open to them to conduct a de novo

examination of the question of eligibility of the Appellant but

to refer it back to the Commission . We, therefore, find

substance in the Appellant’s contention that the Respondent-

State lacked the ability to independently reopen the question

of eligibility after the same had been verified by the

Commission in the light of Rule 10 of the Service Rules, 1983.

We must also note that in respect of other

recommended candidates, appointments have been made,

thus showing that there were no issues with the selection

process. But the appointment of the Appellant was held up,

as the Appointing Authority treated him as ineligible. In our

view, the Appointing Authority could not have re-determined

this aspect at this stage and reject the recommendation for

the reasons discussed above.

Page 55 of 65

60. For the reasons discussed above, in the present case

we are unable to approve the step taken by the Government

in constituting an expert committee to examine the

Appellant's eligibility. We are satisfied that the course of action

adopted by the State Government is contrary to the

constitutional arrangement and is not supported by the

governing statutory rules.

61. We 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.

Page 56 of 65

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?

62. Even though we have already held that the report of

the committee cannot be acted upon, yet what it provides is

another expert view at the instance of the Respondent-State.

Thus, we find that there are two views of experts giving

contradictory opinions on the eligibility of the Appellant. One

view is that of the Commission, which found the Appellant

eligible, and the contrary view is that of the committee of

experts constituted by the Respondent-State, which found the

Appellant ineligible. Since there are two contradictory views

that exist as to the Appellant’s eligibility, one view must

prevail over the other. Ordinarily, the Courts do not examine

the correctness of expert views, especially when it pertains to

the domain of subject-experts, unless there are clear patent

illegalities based on certain undisputed facts. Yet, if a choice

had to be made by the Court, obviously the Court must favour

the expert view that is more reasonable. However, in the

Page 57 of 65

present case, in the light of the specific provision of Rule 10,

this Court may not have to take recourse to this option but

give primacy to the view of the Commission unless it is shown

to be wholly incorrect and unsustainable in law, which has

not been demonstrated before this Court.

63. We are, however, also not inclined to refer the matter

to the Commission again. When the Respondent-State wrote

to the Commission on 28.02.2024 pertaining to the eligibility

of the Appellant, the Respondent-State had within their

knowledge the report of the committee of experts dated

28.06.2023, which had allegedly found that the Appellant was

not eligible. In response to the said letter, the Commission

clarified on 28.03.2024 that the necessary verifications of the

documents had been conducted by subject experts who had

checked the experience and educational qualification of the

candidates and only after such verification was the Appellant

was allowed to appear for the interview.

The only inference we can draw from the above

correspondence is that the Commission was not inclined to re-

Page 58 of 65

examine the eligibility of the Appellant and instead reiterated

its view that the necessary subject experts had already

examined the documents, educational qualification, and

experience qua the Appellant, which found him eligible and he

was thus called for the interview. Thus, in view of the post-

inquiry communication between the Respondent-State and

the Commission, and Rule 10, we are not inclined to refer the

matter back to the Commission.

64. We are also conscious of the fact that the view of the

state-constituted committee may be a possible one, but in

light of the legal provision conferring finality to the decision of

the Commission under Rule 10, and the reiteration by the

Commission during the writ proceedings about his eligibility,

as also noted in the impugned judgment, we are disinclined to

engage further on the question of eligibility. Under the

circumstances, in the absence of any patent and

demonstrable deficiency in the eligibility of the Appellant, we

are not inclined to disturb the view of the Commission, and it

should be allowed to prevail.

Page 59 of 65

65. Hence, the issue as to whether the Appellant is

eligible or not is not being examined by this Court in the

absence of any material which would prima facie demonstrate

that the Appellant is not eligible or that the view of the

Commission was wholly incorrect. We would accordingly

accept the view of the Commission as regards the eligibility of

the Appellant in terms of Rule 10 and accordingly hold him to

be eligible by rejecting the view of the Respondent-State.

66. However, while holding so, we clarify that the

eligibility of the Appellant cannot be determined with reference

to the Rules as applicable for appointment by way of

promotion to the post of Registrar, as contended by the

Appellant, as the eligibility criteria can be different for direct

recruitment and promotion.

67. Thus, having regard to (a) the Appellant's selection

and recommendation by the Commission; (b) the subsequent

opinion rendered by the Commission reaffirming his eligibility;

(c) the statutory provision attaching finality to the opinion of

the Commission as regards eligibility under Rule 10, (d) the

Page 60 of 65

unsustainability of the inquiry committee report; and (e) the

prolonged pendency of the dispute since the year 2021, we are

satisfied that the interests of justice would be best served by

directing the State Government to identify an appropriate

vacancy in the cadre of Registrar and appoint the Appellant

against such vacancy.

CONCLUSION S

68. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold as

follows:

(i) Selection and recommendation by the

Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission did not

confer upon the Appellant an indefeasible right to

appointment to the post of Registrar;

(ii) Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh State

Universities Service Rules, 1983 accords finality to

the Commission’s decision on a candidate's

eligibility;

(iii) Rule 10, however, does not exclude or curtail

the authority of the Appointing Authority to

undertake verification as regards eligibility, but

any such decision by the Appointing Authority on

Page 61 of 65

eligibility must be based on a patent and

demonstrable deficiency in eligibility;

(iv) In view of the specific provision under Rule

10, if the Appointing Authority had any doubt

about the eligibility of any candidate, the

Appointing Authority ought to have referred the

matter back to the Commission for their decision.

The Appointing Authority cannot, on its own, make

an independent assessment of eligibility and

declare any candidate ineligible based on a detailed

enquiry. In the present case, instead of adopting

the aforesaid course of action, the Appointing

Authority proceeded to make its own assessment

by undertaking a detailed enquiry without referring

to the Commission, which is not permissible;

(v) While the Respondent-State was competent

to verify the Appellant’s eligibility, it would be

limited only to the verification of his documents for

its satisfaction, prior to issuance of the final

appointment order, and could not mean

authorising it to undertake an exhaustive enquiry

into the eligibility, which exercise is within the

domain of the Commission;

(vi) The leave granted by the High Court during

the proceedings before it to verify the eligibility of

Page 62 of 65

the candidate must be understood with in the

aforesaid contours of the law and cannot be

understood to confer the State with the

untrammelled authority to independently and

subjectively reassess a candidate’s eligibility by

undertaking a detailed enquiry;

(vii) The inquiry undertaken pursuant to the

orders dated 25.04.2023 and the report dated

28.06.2023 submitted by the committee of experts

constituted by the Higher Education Department,

thus accordingly, cannot be sustained in law.

(viii) Having held that the Appellant is eligible for

the post of Registrar as advertised on 09.02.2021,

and having been recommended by the

Commission, he would be entitled to be appointed

as a Registrar. It has been brought on record that

the Appellant had earlier approached the High

Court of Chhattisgarh by filing a Writ Petition, WPS

No. 780 of 2022 seeking a direction to the State

Government for issuing of appointment order in his

favour and the High Court passed an order on

29.08.2022 to issue the appointment order within

four weeks and hence, the Appellant could not be

faulted for the delay in the appointment as

Registrar and the State-Respondent is responsible

Page 63 of 65

for the delay. The Appellant was given provisional

appointment as Registrar only on 10.04.2023.

DIRECTIONS

69. Consequently, while affirming the authority of the

Respondent-State to verify the eligibility of a selected

candidate before issuance of a final appointment order

within the parameters as discerned above, we issue the

following orders and directions:

(i) The inquiry report dated 28.06.2023

submitted by the committee of experts constituted

by the Higher Education Department shall not be

given effect to qua the Appellant.

(ii) The Appellant is declared eligible for the post

of Registrar, in terms of the Advertisement dated

09.02.2021. Consequently, the order dated

31.10.2022 passed by the State Government

declaring the Appellant as ineligible is set aside.

(iii) The State Department shall issue the

necessary appointment order in favour of the

Appellant to the post of Registrar in any State

University of Chhattisgarh in terms of the public

Page 64 of 65

advertisement dated 09.02.2021 within a period of

three weeks from the date of this judgment.

(iv) As we have already held that the Appellant is

eligible, he is entitled to be appointed to the post of

Registrar from the date on which others who were

selected and recommended along with him were

given appointment to the post of Registrar, and the

Appellant shall be entitled to all the service benefits

from that date. However, as the Appellant was

given provisional appointment to the post of

Registrar on 10.04.2023, the Appellant shall not be

entitled to arrears of pay with effect from the said

appointed date till 10.04.2023, and his seniority

shall also be determined in accordance with the

statutory Rules;

70. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of

in the aforesaid terms. The impugned judgment and order

dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High

Court of Chhattisgarh in Writ Appeal No. 360 of 2025 is set

aside. Consequently, the Writ Petitions, WPS No. 8005 of

2022 and WPS No. 7350 of 2023, are allowed.

Page 65 of 65

71. In view of the directions issued herein, Contempt

Petition (C) No. 765 of 2025, in SLP (C) No. 22648 of 2025,

also stands disposed of.

Parties to bear their own cost.

Application(s), if any, pending shall stand disposed

of in terms of the above directions and order.

……………………………J.

(SANJAY KAROL )

………………………………………………J.

(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)

NEW DELHI;

August 20, 2026.