Law United
Menu
Log inJoin Law United
REPORTABLE JUDGMENT · STRUCTURED SUMMARY

Supreme Court: State Cannot Reopen Eligibility When Service Rules Make Public Service Commission’s Decision Final

The Supreme Court held that selection by a Public Service Commission does not itself create an indefeasible right to appointment, but where a statutory rule makes the Commission’s eligibility decision final, the appointi…

Judgment library
LAW UNITED · SUPREME COURT DESKREPORTABLE

2026-08-20 — Shailendra Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Published 23 August 202618 min readAutomatically processed

Service Law / Public Employment

Administrative Law / Judicial Review

The Supreme Court held that selection by a Public Service Commission does not itself create an indefeasible right to appointment, but where a statutory rule makes the Commission’s eligibility decision final, the appointing authority cannot substitute a fresh de novo eligibility inquiry of its own. Applying Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh State Universities Service Rules, 1983, the Court declared Shailendra Kumar Patel eligible for appointment as Registrar and ordered the State to appoint him within three weeks.

CASE DETAILS

CaseShailendra Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Neutral citation2026 INSC 902
Case numbersCivil Appeal No. 238 of 2026, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23061 of 2025, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 765 of 2025 in SLP (Civil) No. 22648 of 2025
Diary numbersDiary No. 41048 of 2025
Judgment date2026-08-20
CourtSupreme Court of India
JurisdictionCivil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case typeService law / public employment civil appeal with connected contempt petition
PlaceNew Delhi
DispositionAppeal allowed; the Division Bench judgment was set aside, the two writ petitions were allowed, Patel was declared eligible and directed to be appointed as Registrar within three weeks with specified service benefits, the connected contempt petition was disposed of, and parties were left to bear their own costs.

BENCH

Coram: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh. Opinion authored by: Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.

WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HELD

  • Selection and recommendation by a Public Service Commission does not by itself confer an indefeasible or vested right to appointment; the selected candidate is nevertheless entitled to fair, non-arbitrary consideration and any refusal to appoint must rest on lawful and germane reasons. [1] [5] (paras 43-49; PDF pp. 35-44)
  • Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh State Universities Service Rules, 1983 gives finality to the Commission’s determination of a candidate’s eligibility for selection, so the State could not independently conduct a detailed de novo reassessment of Patel’s eligibility on the same materials. [1] [3] [5] (paras 53-61; PDF pp. 48-55)
  • The appointing authority may verify original documents and act on fraud, forgery, newly discovered material, or a patent and demonstrable eligibility defect, but if it has a genuine eligibility doubt under Rule 10 it should refer the matter back to the Commission rather than substitute its own exhaustive expert inquiry. [1] [3] [5] (paras 56-61, 68(iii)-(vi); PDF pp. 50-55, 60-62)
  • The State-constituted committee’s report dated 28 June 2023 could not lawfully displace the Commission’s eligibility determination; the Court accepted the Commission’s reiterated view and held Patel eligible for the advertised Registrar post. [1] [5] (paras 60-65, 68(vii)-(viii); PDF pp. 55-59, 61-63)
  • The appeal was allowed, the High Court’s Division Bench judgment was set aside, the State was ordered to appoint Patel as Registrar in a State University within three weeks, and he was granted service benefits from the date his co-selectees were appointed, subject to denial of arrears of pay up to 10 April 2023 and statutory determination of seniority. [1] [5] (paras 67-71; PDF pp. 59-65)

BACKGROUND

  • Patel had been serving in the Chhattisgarh State Universities Service as Deputy Registrar since 26 February 2016 and claimed earlier teaching and academic-administrative experience in higher educational institutions. [1] (paras 10; PDF pp. 7)
  • On 9 February 2021 the Commission advertised three Registrar posts in Chhattisgarh State Universities, one each for the Unreserved, Scheduled Caste and Other Backward Classes categories, with qualifications and experience drawn from Schedule II of the 1983 Service Rules. [1] (paras 11; PDF pp. 7-8)
  • After scrutiny by the Commission and subject experts, Patel was permitted to sit the recruitment process, ranked first in the OBC category in the final select list dated 30 September 2021, and was recommended to the State on 7 October 2021. [1] (paras 12; PDF pp. 8)
  • The Commission’s recommendation required the appointing authority, before appointment, to verify original documents and satisfy itself regarding eligibility. [1] (paras 12, 59; PDF pp. 8, 52-54)
  • A Departmental Promotion Committee convened on 10 March 2022 also found Patel suitable for promotion to Registrar, though no promotion recommendation was made because of alleged non-availability of vacancies; he was later given additional charge of Registrar at Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University. [1] (paras 14; PDF pp. 9)
  • Instead of issuing a final appointment after the first High Court direction, the State constituted a committee and, by order dated 31 October 2022, declared Patel ineligible on the ground that he lacked the prescribed experience. [1] (paras 15-16; PDF pp. 10)
  • Following later High Court proceedings, the State issued a provisional appointment order on 10 April 2023 but did not initially assign a university posting; on 31 August 2023 Patel was temporarily posted to the office of the Commissioner, Higher Education Department. [1] (paras 18-23; PDF pp. 11-14)
  • The State’s committee report of 28 June 2023 assessed Patel’s service particulars, Academic Grade Pay progression and teaching experience and concluded that he did not possess the requisite experience for Registrar. [1] (paras 24-25; PDF pp. 14-16)
  • When the State later sought clarification, the Commission stated on 28 March 2024 that subject experts had already scrutinised qualifications and experience before interview and that nothing remained pending at the Commission’s level. [1] (paras 26; PDF pp. 16-17)

Procedural history

  • In WPS No. 780 of 2022, the High Court on 29 August 2022 directed the State to issue Patel’s appointment order within four weeks. [1] (paras 15; PDF pp. 10)
  • After the State’s 31 October 2022 ineligibility order, Patel filed WPS No. 8005 of 2022; the High Court directed that appointments made during pendency would abide by the writ’s outcome. [1] (paras 16-17; PDF pp. 10-11)
  • In Review Petition No. 11 of 2023 and Contempt Case No. 1 of 2023, the High Court on 31 March 2023 directed a provisional appointment within ten days while granting liberty to verify documents submitted in the selection process; a provisional appointment followed on 10 April 2023. [1] (paras 18-19; PDF pp. 11-12)
  • Patel later filed WPS No. 7350 of 2023 challenging his posting outside a State University and the ineligibility determination; the High Court passed interim directions and maintained status quo. [1] (paras 20-23; PDF pp. 12-14)
  • A Single Judge dismissed WPS Nos. 8005 of 2022 and 7350 of 2023 on 22 May 2025, holding that the State could verify eligibility and accepting the committee’s conclusion that Patel lacked the requisite experience. [1] (paras 27; PDF pp. 17-18)
  • The Division Bench dismissed Writ Appeal No. 360 of 2025 on 17 June 2025 and affirmed the Single Judge’s approach; Patel then appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 25 August 2025 ordered continuation of the status existing before the impugned judgment. [1] (paras 29-32; PDF pp. 19-21)
  • Patel also filed Contempt Petition (C) No. 765 of 2025 alleging non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s interim status-quo order; that petition was heard with the civil appeal. [1] (paras 33; PDF pp. 21)

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT

  • Whether selection and recommendation by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission gave Patel an indefeasible right to appointment as Registrar. [1] (paras 37(i); PDF pp. 29-30)
  • Whether, despite the Commission’s recommendation and Rule 10, the State as appointing authority could verify and reassess Patel’s eligibility before a final appointment order, including in light of the Commission’s 7 October 2021 verification stipulation. [1] (paras 37(ii); PDF pp. 29-30)
  • Whether Patel met the prescribed teaching-experience criteria and whether the State committee’s contrary eligibility findings were legally sustainable. [1] (paras 37(iii); PDF pp. 30)

PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS

Appellant

Shailendra Kumar Patel

  • Patel argued that Rule 10 made the Commission’s eligibility determination final and deprived the State of jurisdiction to reopen the same question after selection and recommendation. [1] (paras 34(i); PDF pp. 21-22)
  • He relied on the Commission’s original scrutiny, the DPC’s later suitability finding and the Commission’s 28 March 2024 clarification to contend that competent expert bodies had repeatedly affirmed his eligibility. [1] (paras 34(ii); PDF pp. 22)
  • He submitted that the High Court’s liberty to verify documents did not authorise a de novo reassessment of eligibility and that earlier writ and review proceedings had already constrained the State’s course. [1] (paras 34(iii)-(iv); PDF pp. 23)
  • He challenged the committee’s computation of his teaching and administrative experience, including its treatment of Academic Grade Pay and its exclusion of service as Deputy Registrar. [1] (paras 34(v); PDF pp. 24)
  • He alleged inconsistent treatment vis-à-vis other candidates and invoked Articles 14 and 16, contending that appointment could not be denied on arbitrary or discriminatory grounds after a lawful selection. [1] [4] (paras 34(vi)-(vii); PDF pp. 24-26)
  • He ultimately sought setting aside of the High Court judgments and a direction that he be posted as Registrar in a State University. [1] (paras 34(viii)-(ix); PDF pp. 26)
Respondent-State and State authorities

State of Chhattisgarh and respondent authorities

  • The State argued that Patel lacked the teaching and administrative experience required by the advertisement and the governing statutory framework, as reflected in the 28 June 2023 committee report. [1] (paras 35(i); PDF pp. 26-27)
  • It contended that the Commission’s recommendation created no vested right and expressly required document verification and satisfaction regarding eligibility before appointment. [1] (paras 35(ii); PDF pp. 27)
  • The State submitted that earlier High Court orders did not foreclose eligibility scrutiny and that the 31 March 2023 order expressly permitted an inquiry into the documents submitted by Patel. [1] (paras 35(iii); PDF pp. 27)
  • It relied on the settled principle that inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment and maintained that a selected candidate may still be denied appointment if found ineligible. [1] (paras 35(iv); PDF pp. 28)
  • The State defended Patel’s temporary posting to the Commissioner’s office as an administrative arrangement under Article 162 and denied that comparisons with other candidates established discrimination. [1] [4] (paras 35(v)-(vi); PDF pp. 28)
  • The State asked the Supreme Court to uphold the concurrent High Court judgments and dismiss the appeal. [1] (paras 35(vii); PDF pp. 28)
Intervenor

Naresh Kant Chandan

Intervenor Naresh Kant Chandan, who claimed placement in the supplementary or waiting list, supported the State and the impugned High Court judgment because he asserted a consequential interest if Patel’s candidature were invalidated. [1] (paras 36; PDF pp. 29)

COURT'S ANALYSIS AND REASONING

Constitutional role of Public Service Commissions and appointing authorities

  • The Court explained that Articles 315 and 320 place Public Service Commissions within a constitutional architecture designed to protect merit-based recruitment from extraneous influence, while their recommendations remain essentially advisory or recommendatory. [1] [4] (paras 38-42; PDF pp. 30-34)
  • Although the appointing authority retains ultimate discretion to accept or decline a recommendation, that discretion is constrained by statutory rules, Article 14 values and the prohibition on arbitrariness. [1] [4] (paras 41, 43-49; PDF pp. 32-44)
  • The Court distinguished eligibility scrutiny from suitability assessment: the Commission first determines whether candidates meet objective statutory eligibility requirements and then assesses merit or suitability through the selection process. [1] (paras 42, 54; PDF pp. 34, 48-49)

No indefeasible right, but refusal to appoint needs lawful reasons

  • Relying principally on Shankarsan Dash and Tej Prakash Pathak, the Court reaffirmed that selection does not create an absolute right to appointment, even where vacancies exist. [1] (paras 43-45; PDF pp. 35-38)
  • The corollary is that the State must justify a refusal to appoint a selected candidate with bona fide, rational and legally sustainable reasons; the burden lies on the State when its refusal is challenged. [1] (paras 44-49; PDF pp. 36-44)
  • The Court identified examples where refusal may be permissible, including a lawful policy shift, established illegality or corruption in the selection process, or discovery on verification that a recommended candidate is ineligible. [1] (paras 46-47; PDF pp. 38-40)

Rule 10 gives finality to the Commission’s eligibility determination

  • Rule 10 expressly provides that the Commission’s decision on whether a candidate is eligible for selection is final; the Court treated this as a statutory allocation of the substantive eligibility function to the Commission. [1] [3] (paras 53-55; PDF pp. 48-50)
  • Because Patel’s eligibility had already been examined by the Commission with experts, the State could not duplicate that exercise through a parallel detailed inquiry and reach a contrary conclusion on the same material. [1] (paras 51-52, 55, 58; PDF pp. 45-47, 49-51)
  • If the State noticed a fundamental and readily discoverable error, or obtained new material clearly indicating ineligibility, it could defer appointment; under Rule 10, however, a genuine substantive eligibility doubt had to be sent back to the Commission. [1] [3] (paras 56-57, 59; PDF pp. 50-54)
  • The Commission’s 7 October 2021 words requiring “verification” and “satisfaction” could not override Rule 10; the Court construed them as permitting authentication of documents and checks for patent illegality, fraud, forgery or genuinely new disqualifying material, not a de novo merits inquiry. [1] [3] (paras 59; PDF pp. 52-54)
  • No such patent defect, new disqualifying material, fraud or fundamental flaw in the Commission’s original eligibility assessment was shown; the State committee instead performed a subjective re-evaluation of materials already scrutinised by the Commission. [1] (paras 51-52, 59-61; PDF pp. 45-47, 52-55)

Application to Patel and appropriate relief

  • The Court treated the Commission’s view and the State committee’s view as competing expert opinions, but Rule 10 required primacy for the Commission unless its view was shown to be wholly incorrect or legally unsustainable. [1] (paras 62; PDF pp. 56-57)
  • A remand to the Commission was unnecessary because, after the State’s 2023 inquiry, the State had sought clarification and the Commission’s 28 March 2024 response effectively reiterated its earlier eligibility determination. [1] (paras 63-64; PDF pp. 57-58)
  • The Supreme Court did not independently recalculate Patel’s experience; instead, absent a patent demonstrable deficiency, it accepted the Commission’s final statutory determination and held him eligible. [1] (paras 64-65; PDF pp. 58-59)
  • The Court clarified that Patel could not establish direct-recruitment eligibility by relying on eligibility criteria applicable to promotion, because the two modes can legitimately prescribe different criteria. [1] (paras 66; PDF pp. 59)
  • Given the Commission’s selection and reaffirmation, the invalidity of the committee report and the dispute’s prolonged pendency since 2021, the Court found that justice required an actual Registrar appointment against an appropriate vacancy. [1] (paras 67; PDF pp. 59-60)

RATIO DECIDENDI

  • A Public Service Commission’s recommendation ordinarily does not create an indefeasible right to appointment, but the appointing authority’s refusal must be bona fide, non-arbitrary, reasoned and consistent with the governing statutory framework. [1] (paras 43-49, 68(i); PDF pp. 35-44, 60)
  • Where Rule 10 expressly makes the Commission’s eligibility decision final, the appointing authority cannot replace that determination with its own detailed de novo eligibility inquiry on the same materials. [1] [3] (paras 53-61, 68(ii)-(vii); PDF pp. 48-55, 60-62)
  • Post-selection verification remains permissible for authenticity of documents, fraud or forgery, newly discovered material, and patent or demonstrable eligibility defects; a substantive doubt under the Rule 10 regime must be referred back to the Commission. [1] [3] (paras 56-61, 68(iii)-(vi); PDF pp. 50-55, 60-62)
  • Because the State showed no patent defect or new material and the Commission later reiterated that expert scrutiny had already occurred, the Commission’s eligibility finding had to prevail and Patel had to be treated as eligible for direct recruitment. [1] (paras 62-67, 68(viii); PDF pp. 56-63)

OBITER / IMPORTANT CASE-SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS

The judgment contains broader illustrations of circumstances in which an appointing authority may lawfully decline to act on a Public Service Commission recommendation; these illustrations go beyond the precise Rule 10 defect presented here. It also contains a case-specific clarification separating direct-recruitment and promotion eligibility.

  • The Court observed more generally that an appointing authority may in an appropriate case refuse appointment because of a bona fide change in policy insisting on higher competence or because the selection process is established to have been vitiated by fraud, manipulation, nepotism, paper leakage, rigging, corruption or unfair means. [1] (paras 46; PDF pp. 38-40)
  • The Court clarified that satisfaction of promotion criteria cannot automatically establish eligibility for direct recruitment because the governing criteria for the two modes may differ. [1] (paras 66; PDF pp. 59)

FINAL RULING AND DIRECTIONS

  • The expert committee report dated 28 June 2023 shall not be given effect to insofar as Patel is concerned. [1] (paras 69(i); PDF pp. 63)
  • Patel is declared eligible for the Registrar post under the 9 February 2021 advertisement, and the State’s order dated 31 October 2022 declaring him ineligible is set aside. [1] (paras 69(ii); PDF pp. 63)
  • The State Department shall issue the necessary appointment order appointing Patel as Registrar in any State University of Chhattisgarh under the 9 February 2021 advertisement. [1] (paras 69(iii); PDF pp. 63-64)
  • Patel is entitled to appointment from the date on which the other candidates selected and recommended with him were appointed, together with service benefits from that date; he is not entitled to arrears of pay for the period up to his provisional appointment on 10 April 2023, and seniority must be fixed under the statutory Rules. [1] (paras 69(iv); PDF pp. 64)
  • The civil appeal is allowed; the Division Bench judgment dated 17 June 2025 in Writ Appeal No. 360 of 2025 is set aside; WPS Nos. 8005 of 2022 and 7350 of 2023 are allowed. [1] (paras 70; PDF pp. 64)
  • Contempt Petition (C) No. 765 of 2025 in SLP (C) No. 22648 of 2025 is disposed of in view of the substantive directions. [1] (paras 71; PDF pp. 65)
  • The parties shall bear their own costs, and pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the judgment. [1] (paras 71; PDF pp. 65)

STATUTES INVOLVED

InstrumentProvisionsRelevance
Constitution of IndiaArticles 14 and 16, Article 162, Articles 315 and 320, Article 323Articles 14 and 16 informed the anti-arbitrariness and equality arguments in public employment; Article 162 was invoked for the temporary posting; Articles 315 and 320 framed the constitutional role of Public Service Commissions; Article 323 was discussed as an accountability mechanism when Commission advice is not accepted. [1] [4]
Chhattisgarh State Universities Service Rules, 1983Rule 10, Schedule IIRule 10 made the Commission’s decision on eligibility final and was the decisive statutory constraint on the State’s post-selection de novo inquiry. Schedule II supplied the advertised qualifications and experience requirements for Registrar. [1] [3]
Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973Statutory framework governing State Universities and the office of RegistrarFormed part of the statutory setting for the Registrar post and Patel’s challenge to being posted outside a State University. [1] [3]

KEY PRECEDENTS AND THEIR TREATMENT

Precedent & CitationTreatmentPrinciple/Application
Ram Ashray Yadav (Dr), Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, In Re, (2000) 4 SCC 309referred_with_approvalCited for the constitutional values of independence, impartiality and integrity underlying Public Service Commissions and merit-based public recruitment. [1]
Ram Kumar Kashyap v. Union of India, (2009) 9 SCC 378referred_with_approvalCited with Ram Ashray Yadav on the constitutional role and independence of Public Service Commissions. [1]
H. Mukherjee (Dr) v. Union of India, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 250relied_onRelied on to explain that Commission recommendations are recommendatory and Government may depart from them, subject to constitutional and legal constraints. [1]
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47binding_followedFollowed for the rule that selection does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, while arbitrary refusal by the State remains impermissible. [1]
Commissioner of Police v. Umesh Kumar, (2020) 10 SCC 448followedReaffirmed that inclusion in a select list does not confer a vested right to appointment; also noted as authority relied on by the High Court. [1]
Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, (2025) 2 SCC 1binding_followedThe Constitution Bench proposition was used to emphasise both the absence of an indefeasible appointment right and the State’s burden to justify denial of appointment to a selected candidate. [1]
State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220relied_onUsed as an example that Government may, for bona fide policy reasons, insist on higher standards and need not fill every advertised vacancy. [1]
Asha Kaul (Mrs.) & Anr. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 573relied_onRelied on to reject any theory of absolute Government power over Commission recommendations and to underscore the need for recorded reasons and constitutional accountability. [1]
Punjab State Electricity Board v. Malkiat Singh, (2005) 9 SCC 22cited_in_submissionsThe State cited it for the proposition that a selected candidate has no indefeasible right to appointment and may be denied appointment if ineligible. [1]
Patna Improvement Trust v. Smt. Lakshmi Devi, AIR 1963 SC 1077cited_in_submissionsPatel cited it for the principle that where a statute prescribes a manner of doing an act, that manner must be followed. [1]
Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar, (2015) 11 SCC 628cited_in_submissionsPatel cited it alongside Patna Improvement Trust for the proposition that statutory procedure must be followed as prescribed. [1]
Manoj Manu v. Union of India, (2013) 12 SCC 171cited_in_submissionsPatel cited it in support of non-arbitrary treatment of selected candidates. [1]
Anoop Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2015 SCC OnLine Chh 1707cited_in_submissionsPatel cited this High Court decision in support of his claim that denial of appointment after selection must not be arbitrary or discriminatory. [1]

LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE

  • The judgment draws a clear institutional boundary in public recruitment: an appointing authority retains the last word on whether to appoint, but a statutory rule can make the Public Service Commission’s eligibility determination conclusive and thereby prevent a parallel merits inquiry. [1] [3] [5] (paras 41-45, 53-61; PDF pp. 32-38, 48-55)
  • It distinguishes permissible post-selection verification from impermissible reassessment: checking authenticity, patent defects, fraud or genuinely new material is allowed, whereas re-weighing the same eligibility evidence through a new committee is not. [1] [5] (paras 56-61, 68(iii)-(vi); PDF pp. 50-55, 60-62)
  • The decision reinforces that the “no indefeasible right to appointment” doctrine is not a licence for arbitrary State action; refusal still requires reasons capable of judicial scrutiny. [1] [5] (paras 43-49; PDF pp. 35-44)
  • For service-law disputes governed by finality clauses comparable to Rule 10, the judgment provides a structured route: detect a patent or new eligibility issue, defer appointment if necessary, and return the question to the competent Commission rather than creating a substitute eligibility forum. [1] [3] (paras 56-61; PDF pp. 50-55)

PRACTICAL IMPACT — EDITORIAL ANALYSIS

  • For recruiting departments, the practical consequence is that verification checklists should distinguish document authenticity and patent disqualification from substantive re-evaluation of qualifications already entrusted by statute to a Public Service Commission. [1] (paras 56-61; PDF pp. 50-55)
  • For selected candidates, the judgment does not guarantee appointment merely from selection; it instead strengthens protection against a later eligibility reversal that bypasses the statutory decision-maker or lacks a demonstrable new basis. [1] (paras 43-49, 53-61; PDF pp. 35-44, 48-55)
  • For courts reviewing public-employment disputes, the case suggests separating three questions that are often conflated: whether the candidate has an absolute appointment right, whether the appointing authority has a legitimate reason to withhold appointment, and which institution the governing rules authorise to decide substantive eligibility. [1] (paras 43-49, 53-61; PDF pp. 35-44, 48-55)

SOURCE CITATIONS & ILI-STYLE BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] Shailendra Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., 2026 INSC 902, Civil Appeal No. 238 of 2026, decided 20 August 2026 (Supreme Court of India). Open source

[2] Supreme Court of India, Latest Judgments entry, Shailendra Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh, Civil Appeal No. 238 of 2026, Diary No. 41048 of 2025, judgment dated 20 August 2026. Open source

[3] Government of India, India Code, The Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (Act 22 of 1973), associated Rules entry dated 25 March 1983 for the Chhattisgarh State Universities Service Rules, 1983. Open source

[4] Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Legislative Department, The Constitution of India (2026 English Version). Open source

[5] LiveLaw News Network, “Once Service Rules Say PSC’s Decision Is Final, Govt Cannot Inquire Into Candidate’s Eligibility: Supreme Court”, LiveLaw, 21 August 2026. Open source

EDITORIAL NOTE

View linked judgment PDF