The Supreme Court docket has held that the place service guidelines expressly make the Public Service Fee’s choice on a candidate’s eligibility ultimate, the federal government can not independently reopen and exhaustively reassess the candidate’s eligibility after the Fee has discovered the particular person eligible and really helpful them for appointment.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard a case involving one Shailendra Kumar Patel, who was chosen and really helpful by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Fee (CGPSC) for the publish of Registrar in a State College. Regardless of the advice, the State Authorities constituted its personal inquiry committee, which concluded that the Appellant didn’t possess the requisite expertise, resulting in his disqualification.
The Court docket put aside the concurrent findings of the Division and Single Bench choice of the Chhattisgarh Excessive Court docket, which had justified the State Authorities choice to undertake an exhaustive enquiry into the eligibility of the Appellants, who had been really helpful and chosen by the State PSC for the Registrar publish.
“…we maintain that it was not open for the Authorities to independently re-examine the problem of eligibility and arrive at a unique conclusion, based mostly on the detailed re-examination that the candidate shouldn’t be eligible, that space of consideration having been taken away statutorily from the Appointing Authority and particularly assigned to the Fee.”, the Court docket noticed.
The Court docket held underneath Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh State Universities Service Guidelines, 1983, the Fee’s choice on eligibility is ultimate.
“Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh State Universities Service Guidelines, 1983 accords finality to the Fee’s choice on a candidate’s eligibility…Rule 10, nevertheless, doesn’t exclude or curtail the authority of the Appointing Authority to undertake verification as regards eligibility, however any such choice by the Appointing Authority on eligibility have to be based mostly on a patent and demonstrable deficiency in eligibility.”, the court docket stated.
State’s enquiry to candidate’s eligibility is restricted to verification of paperwork
The Court docket clarified that “whereas the Respondent-State was competent to confirm the Appellant’s eligibility, it could be restricted solely to the verification of his paperwork for its satisfaction, previous to issuance of the ultimate appointment order, and couldn’t imply authorising it to undertake an exhaustive enquiry into the eligibility, which train is throughout the area of the Fee.”
“We’re, subsequently, of the thought-about view that the finality hooked up to the Fee’s willpower underneath Rule 10 prevents the Appointing Authority from analyzing the substantive query of eligibility within the method so performed within the current case. The verification may very well be solely of the genuineness of the paperwork or to seek out out any patent demonstrative deficiency within the eligibility of the Appellant, which isn’t the case herein. Accordingly, the report dated 28.06.2023 can not type the premise for redetermining the Appellant’s eligibility, because it has no pressure of legislation and is liable to be ignored.”, the Court docket stated.
In consequence, the attraction was allowed, declaring the Appellant to be eligible for the publish of Registrar and directing the State Authorities to problem a ultimate appointment order inside three weeks.
The Court docket additionally ordered that the Appellant be entitled to appointment from the date when different chosen candidates had been appointed, although with out arrears of pay for the provisional interval.
Trigger Title: SHAILENDRA KUMAR PATEL VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. (with linked case)
Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 838
Click here to download judgment
Look:
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Ms. Parul Shukla, AOR Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Adv. Ms. Shubhangi Pandey, Adv. Mr. Gladson Rodrigues, Adv. Ms. Keesha Kumar, Adv. Ms. Riddhi Jain, Adv. Mr. Adithya Okay Roy, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Ms. Ayushi Pandey, Adv. Ms. Aswathi M.Okay., AOR Mr. Shesh Deshpandey, Adv. Mr. Bishwajit Dubey, A.A.G. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, AOR Mr. Yashvardhan Shah, Adv. Mr. Akshit Awasthi, Adv. Ms. Kritika Yadav, Adv. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Pandey, Adv. Ms. Aswathi M.Okay., AOR Mr. Shesh Deshpandey, Adv.
