#Public Service Commission

A candidate recommended by a State Public Service Commission cannot claim an indefeasible right to appointment, as Rule 10 of the 1983 Service Rules makes the eligibility finding conclusive and bars any de novo review by the State. This limits State governments’ ability to reassess eligibility for registrar and similar posts.

Promotees in Uttarakhand can treat ad hoc promotions under Rule 24(4) as seniority-bearing, provided the promotion fits the vacancy quota. The Supreme Court also clarified that the Public Service Commission’s consultation requirement is merely directory, not fatal. This ruling expands seniority rights for civil servants appointed on a temporary basis.

Allahabad HC rules that the State of U.P. must clarify whether lecturer seniority is determined cadre-wise or subject-wise before the Public Service Commission submits its merit list. Non-compliance with prior judicial directions will attract costs, reinforcing judicial oversight over administrative procedural clarity in service law.

CAT Jammu rules that permanent absorption in a post mandating Public Service Commission selection cannot bypass statutory recruitment rules, even for employees with long temporary service. The judgment reinforces that lateral entry or absorption must comply with prescribed selection processes, impacting government hiring policies and service law compliance.

Allahabad HC rules that minor, bona fide mistakes in online applications-such as incorrect dependency status-do not justify candidature cancellation if eligibility remains unaffected. The court emphasized that administrative fairness and natural justice must prevail over technical errors, protecting applicants from arbitrary disqualification.

Uttarakhand High Court rules that candidates excluded from a revised cut-off list due to recomputation of exam results hold no indefeasible right to proceed to the next stage. The court emphasized that selection lists remain provisional until finalization, rejecting claims of vested rights under natural justice principles.

Uttarakhand High Court upholds an employer's interpretation of 'concerned trade' in recruitment rules as a valid clarification, not a rule change, provided it is not arbitrary. The ruling reinforces that such interpretations must be respected in the selection process, impacting public service recruitment and administrative law.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that candidates must hold the precise degree title specified in recruitment advertisements, regardless of whether their university offers an equivalent specialization under a different name. This sets a rigid precedent for public service commissions nationwide, effectively barring applicants with substantively similar but nominally different degrees from eligibility, reinforcing textual over substantive interpretation in public employment.

Chhattisgarh High Court directs authorities to consider pending representation for OBC candidate in vacant Assistant Professor post, affirming obligation to fill reserved quotas expeditiously.

CAT holds that when an Open Merit vacancy arises post-correction of reservation, the original merit order must be restored before operating waiting lists to protect reserved category candidates' rights.

Bombay High Court grants ad-interim relief to petitioner to appear for public service interview without caste certificate, pending final adjudication of tribe claim validity.

Kerala High Court holds that distance education degrees cannot satisfy 'regular course of study' requirements unless explicitly recognized as equivalent under statutory rules.