Supreme Court Restricts Government’s Power to Reassess Qualifications After PSC Recommendation
Service Rules Give Finality to Commission’s Decision
The PSC Eligibility Decision becomes binding when service rules expressly give it finality, the Supreme Court has held. In such cases, the government cannot independently reassess a candidate’s qualifications. Instead, the appointing authority must remain within the limits prescribed by the relevant rules.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh delivered the ruling. The Bench examined the powers of the Chhattisgarh Government after the Public Service Commission recommended a candidate.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the approach taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court. Both its Single Judge and Division Bench had allowed the government to conduct an independent eligibility inquiry.
However, the Apex Court found that the governing service rules restricted such an inquiry. Once the Commission decided eligibility, the government could not reopen the same issue through a detailed reassessment.
The Court observed:
“…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.”
Dispute Over Appointment of University Registrar
The dispute arose from recruitment for the post of University Registrar. The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) conducted the selection under the Chhattisgarh State Universities Service Rules, 1983.
Shailendra Kumar Patel participated in the recruitment process. After examining his qualifications, the CGPSC found him eligible and recommended him for appointment.
Despite the recommendation, the State Government initiated another inquiry. A departmental committee examined his practical experience credentials.
Subsequently, the committee submitted a report dated June 28, 2023. It concluded that Patel lacked the required experience.
Relying on that report, the government disqualified him. Consequently, it withheld his appointment order.
Patel challenged the government’s action. The dispute eventually reached the Supreme Court.
Rule 10 Gives Finality to Eligibility Determination
The Supreme Court examined Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh State Universities Service Rules, 1983. Importantly, the provision gives finality to the Commission’s decision on a candidate’s eligibility.
Therefore, the Bench held that the government had exceeded its authority. The statutory framework did not permit it to conduct another substantive assessment.
Accordingly, the Court rejected the departmental inquiry report. It found that the report could not override the Commission’s final determination.
The Court explained:
“Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh State Universities Service Rules, 1983 accords finality to the Commission’s decision on a candidate’s eligibility… 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.”
Thus, the PSC Eligibility Decision remained binding on the appointing authority under the applicable rules.
Verification Is Different From Re-Evaluation
At the same time, the Supreme Court recognised the government’s limited verification powers. The appointing authority may verify documents before issuing an appointment order.
For example, officials may check whether certificates are genuine. They may also investigate impersonation or identify an obvious deficiency in the submitted records.
However, document verification has clear limits. The government cannot use this stage to conduct a fresh assessment of eligibility.
Moreover, officials cannot reconsider subjective criteria that the Commission has already examined. Doing so would undermine the statutory finality granted to the selecting body.
Therefore, the Court drew a clear distinction between verification and re-evaluation. Verification confirms the authenticity of records. Re-evaluation, in contrast, reopens the merits of an eligibility determination.
Supreme Court Directs Appointment Within Three Weeks
Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed Patel’s appeal. It declared him eligible for appointment to the post of Registrar.
The Court also directed the Chhattisgarh Government to issue his appointment order within three weeks.
Furthermore, Patel will receive retrospective seniority. His seniority will begin from the date on which authorities appointed his co-selected candidates.
However, he will not receive salary arrears for the intervening period.
Overall, the ruling limits the power of appointing authorities when service rules make a Commission’s eligibility determination final. It also protects the statutory role of Public Service Commissions in recruitment.
At the same time, governments retain their legitimate power to verify documents. They cannot, however, turn verification into a second eligibility inquiry.
