Selected but Not Appointed: Supreme Court Says the State Cannot Re-Decide Eligibility Already Settled by the PSC

Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has directed the State of Chhattisgarh to appoint a candidate selected by the State Public Service Commission as Registrar of a State University. It reaffirmed that selection creates no indefeasible right to appointment, but held that where Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh State Universities Service Rules, 1983 makes the Commission’s eligibility decision final, the appointing authority may only check for patent deficiencies and cannot conduct its own fresh inquiry into eligibility.

The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission advertised three posts of Registrar in State Universities on 9 February 2021. The appellant, applying in the OBC category, was placed first in the final select list on 30 September 2021 and was recommended on 7 October 2021, subject to verification of documents and eligibility.

No appointment followed. On 31 October 2022 the State declared him ineligible for want of the required teaching experience, and a committee of three government college principals reported to the same effect on 28 June 2023, even though the Commission reaffirmed his eligibility in March 2024. A provisional appointment order without a posting was issued in April 2023 under High Court orders. A Single Judge and then a Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court (17 June 2025) upheld the State’s stand.

The Key Question Before the Court

When recruitment rules make the Public Service Commission’s decision on eligibility final, can the State as appointing authority hold its own inquiry and declare a selected candidate ineligible?

No Vested Right, but No Second Eligibility Inquiry Either

Relying on the Constitution Bench in Shankarsan Dash, (1991) 04 SC CK 0071, and on Umesh Kumar, (2020) 10 SC CK 0007 and Tej Prakash Pathak, (2024) 11 SC CK 0001, the Court held that a selected candidate has no indefeasible right to appointment, but the State must justify a refusal on legitimate grounds such as eligibility defects or illegality in the selection, as recognised in Subash Chander Marwaha, (1973) 05 SC CK 0010, H. Mukherjee, (1993) 09 SC CK 0043 and Asha Kaul, (1992) 04 SC CK 0014.

The decisive factor was Rule 10, under which “the decision of the Commission as to the eligibility or otherwise of a candidate for selection shall be final”. Read with that rule, the verification contemplated in the Commission’s recommendation was confined to the genuineness of documents, patent deficiencies or new material. If the State doubted eligibility, the proper course was to refer the matter back to the Commission. The committee’s contrary view was not shown to be patently wrong, so the Commission’s view prevailed. The Court also found the delay attributable to the State, not the appellant.

What the Court Actually Held

• Selection did not confer an indefeasible right to appointment as Registrar.
• “The Appointing Authority cannot, on its own, make an independent assessment of eligibility” where Rule 10 applies.
• The 31 October 2022 ineligibility order was set aside and the 28 June 2023 committee report will not be given effect to against the appellant.
• The appellant is declared eligible and must be appointed as Registrar within three weeks, with service benefits from the date his co-selectees were appointed but no arrears before 10 April 2023.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It marks the limits of an appointing authority’s verification power where rules give finality to the PSC.
• It shows how a selected candidate can obtain relief despite having no vested right to appointment.
• It places responsibility for administrative delay on the State in fixing service benefits.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Selected Candidates

• Check whether the recruitment rules make the Commission’s eligibility decision final.
• Challenge a de novo eligibility inquiry by the appointing authority as beyond its verification power.

For State Counsel

• Confine verification to document genuineness and patent defects.
• Where eligibility is genuinely doubtful, refer the issue back to the Commission rather than deciding it internally.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

No. It reaffirmed that selection alone creates no indefeasible right, but the State must justify any refusal lawfully.

Because Rule 10 made the Commission’s eligibility decision final; the State could verify only patent deficiencies or refer the matter back to the Commission.

He gets service benefits from the date his co-selectees were appointed, but no arrears for the period before 10 April 2023.

Conclusion

Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →