PSC eligibility decision final under Rule 10; State cannot conduct a de novo inquiry, Supreme Court rules

The appellant participated in the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission’s recruitment process pursuant to an advertisement dated 09.02.2021 for three posts of Registrar in State Universities.

After scrutiny of his qualifications and experience, he was permitted to participate in the written examination and interview and was placed first in the OBC category in the select list published on 30.09.2021.

The Commission recommended his appointment to the State Government on 07.10.2021, subject to verification of original documents and satisfaction regarding eligibility.

Despite the recommendation, the State did not issue a final appointment order. Although the High Court directed appointment within four weeks on 29.08.2022, the State constituted an inquiry committee instead and, relying on its report, declared the appellant ineligible on 31.10.2022 for allegedly lacking the requisite teaching experience.

Pursuant to a subsequent High Court order, the State issued a provisional appointment order dated 10.04.2023 but did not assign him a place of posting; instead, he was temporarily posted to the office of the Commissioner, Higher Education Department, rather than to a State University.

The committee’s report dated 28.06.2023 concluded that the appellant lacked the prescribed experience in the relevant Academic Grade Pay scales. The Commission, however, reaffirmed in its communication dated 28.03.2024 that the appellant’s qualifications and experience had been scrutinised by subject experts and that he had been correctly found eligible.

The Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court upheld the State’s action, leading to the present appeal.

1. Whether selection and recommendation by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission conferred an indefeasible right to appointment upon the appellant?

2. Whether the State Government, notwithstanding the Commission’s recommendation, was competent to verify and substantively reassess the appellant’s eligibility before issuance of the final appointment order?

3. Whether the appellant fulfilled the prescribed teaching-experience criteria and whether the State-constituted inquiry committee’s findings were legally sustainable?

The Court applied Articles 315, 320 and 323 of the Constitution, which establish Public Service Commissions as independent constitutional bodies entrusted with fair and merit-based recruitment, while recognising that their recommendations are ordinarily recommendatory and that the appointing authority retains the ultimate discretion to appoint.

Under Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, inclusion in a select list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment, but the State cannot deny appointment arbitrarily; its decision must be bona fide and supported by valid reasons.

Asha Kaul v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Dr. H. Mukherjee v. Union of India similarly establish that the Government cannot mechanically accept or reject a Commission’s recommendation and must record lawful, rational and germane reasons for departure.

The Court also relied on Commissioner of Police v. Umesh Kumar and Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court for the principle that selection does not itself confer an absolute right to appointment, although arbitrary denial is impermissible.

Crucially, Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh State Universities Service Rules, 1983 provides that the Commission’s decision regarding a candidate’s eligibility is final.

Accordingly, the appointing authority may verify the genuineness of documents or identify a patent and demonstrable eligibility defect, but cannot conduct an independent, exhaustive or de novo reassessment of eligibility; where doubt exists, the matter must be referred back to the Commission.

The Court held that the Commission had examined the appellant’s qualifications and experience with the assistance of subject experts before permitting him to appear for the interview, had selected and recommended him, and had subsequently reaffirmed his eligibility when specifically consulted by the State.

The State-constituted committee did not identify forged documents, new material, mala fides, fraud, patent illegality or any demonstrable error in the Commission’s determination. Instead, it undertook a detailed and subjective re-evaluation of the same service and experience records that had already been considered by the Commission.

The stipulation in the Commission’s recommendation requiring document verification could not override or dilute Rule 10; “verification” was confined to authenticity of documents and patent deficiencies, not substantive re-determination of eligibility.

Since the State had doubts regarding eligibility, it ought to have referred the matter to the Commission rather than independently declaring the appellant ineligible. The inquiry report therefore had no legal basis and could not sustain the State’s decision.

Although the Court recognised that the committee’s view might be a possible expert view, Rule 10 required primacy to be accorded to the Commission’s determination, which had not been shown to be wholly incorrect or unsustainable.

The inquiry report dated 28.06.2023 was declared legally unsustainable and was directed not to be acted upon.

The State’s order dated 31.10.2022 declaring the appellant ineligible was set aside, and the appellant was declared eligible for appointment as Registrar under the advertisement dated 09.02.2021.

The State was directed to issue his appointment order against an appropriate vacancy in any State University of Chhattisgarh within three weeks.

He was held entitled to appointment from the date on which similarly selected candidates were appointed, together with consequential service benefits; however, no arrears of pay were payable for the period after 10.04.2023, when he received provisional appointment, and seniority was to be determined under the applicable rules.

The High Court’s judgment was set aside, the writ petitions were allowed, and the contempt petition was disposed of.