Public service commission in India
Public Service Commission in India
🔹 1. Introduction
The Public Service Commissions (PSC) are constitutional bodies established to ensure merit-based and impartial recruitment to civil services and posts under the Union and State governments.
There are two levels of PSCs:
Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) – for central services
State Public Service Commissions (SPSC) – for state services
These commissions play a crucial role in upholding the values of impartiality, transparency, and integrity in public administration.
🔹 2. Constitutional Provisions
| Article | Provision |
|---|---|
| Article 315 | Establishment of Public Service Commissions for the Union and States |
| Article 316 | Appointment and term of office of members |
| Article 317 | Removal and suspension of a member |
| Article 318 | Power to make regulations regarding conditions of service |
| Article 319 | Prohibition on further employment under government after retirement |
| Article 320 | Functions of Public Service Commissions |
| Article 321 | Extension of functions of PSC to other services |
| Article 322 | Expenses to be charged on the Consolidated Fund |
| Article 323 | Annual report to be laid before Parliament/State Legislature |
🔹 3. Functions of the Public Service Commissions (Article 320)
Recruitment to civil services and posts.
Conducting examinations for appointments.
Advising on:
Methods of recruitment
Principles to be followed in appointments, promotions, and transfers
Disciplinary matters
Claims for legal costs incurred by civil servants
Claims for compensation for injuries during duty
🔹 4. Legal Status
Constitutional Authority: Not subordinate to the executive; they are independent and autonomous.
Advisory Role: Their advice is not binding but carries high persuasive value.
Judicial Review: The actions of PSCs are subject to judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 in cases of procedural irregularities, bias, or arbitrariness.
🔹 5. Key Case Laws on Public Service Commission
⚖️ 1. A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra, AIR 1990 SC 1230
🧾 Facts:
Candidate challenged the commission’s action of disqualifying him without proper notice or hearing.
🧑⚖️ Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that PSC decisions must comply with the principles of natural justice.
📌 Principle:
Even though PSC is not a court, it is bound to follow fair procedure and give a hearing before taking adverse decisions.
⚖️ 2. State of U.P. v. Rafiquddin, AIR 1988 SC 162
🧾 Facts:
Issue arose over irregularities in the selection process conducted by the State PSC.
🧑⚖️ Held:
The Court held that courts can interfere in PSC decisions when there is evidence of malafide, bias, or gross irregularity.
📌 Principle:
PSC is a constitutional body, but its actions are not immune from judicial scrutiny.
⚖️ 3. K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 3 SCC 512
🧾 Facts:
Selection process was changed midway by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission.
🧑⚖️ Held:
Changing the criteria after the process begins is unconstitutional and arbitrary.
📌 Principle:
PSC must maintain transparency and cannot change rules mid-process; candidates have a right to know and rely on declared criteria.
⚖️ 4. Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11
🧾 Facts:
Selection criteria were modified after interviews, affecting candidates unfairly.
🧑⚖️ Held:
Such post-facto changes violate Article 14 (equality before law) and are arbitrary.
📌 Principle:
PSC (and any recruiting authority) cannot alter the selection process retrospectively. Doing so is unfair and discriminatory.
⚖️ 5. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve, (2001) 10 SCC 51
🧾 Facts:
Appointments made by authorities without reference to PSC.
🧑⚖️ Held:
The Court held that bypassing the PSC violates the constitutional mandate and undermines the integrity of the recruitment process.
📌 Principle:
Recruitment to public posts must be through constitutional machinery, and appointments made without PSC involvement are liable to be struck down.
🔹 6. Additional Cases (Brief Mention)
⚖️ N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission, AIR 1990 SC 1236
Held: Even non-binding advice of PSC should be respected unless good reasons are recorded.
⚖️ Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, (2006) 11 SCC 356
Issue: Scam in Punjab PSC. Court ordered re-evaluation and re-selection.
Principle: Courts can order CAG/CBI inquiries into PSC activities when fairness is compromised.
🔹 7. Nature of PSC Advice: Binding or Not?
The advice of the PSC is not binding on the government.
However, the government must record reasons for deviating from the advice.
Arbitrary rejection of PSC recommendations may be challenged in court for violation of Article 14.
🔹 8. Safeguards Ensuring Independence
Security of tenure (Article 316)
Fixed service conditions
Removal only by President (Union) or Governor (State) after SC inquiry (Article 317)
Salaries charged on Consolidated Fund (Article 322)
Post-retirement employment restrictions (Article 319)
🔹 9. Summary Table
| Case | Legal Principle Established |
|---|---|
| A.P. PSC v. B. Sarat Chandra | Natural justice applies to PSC proceedings |
| State of U.P. v. Rafiquddin | PSC actions are subject to judicial review |
| K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. | PSC must not change selection criteria mid-process |
| Hemani Malhotra v. High Court | Retrospective changes in selection violate Article 14 |
| Maharashtra SRTC v. Mandve | Appointments bypassing PSC are unconstitutional |
🔹 10. Conclusion
The Public Service Commissions in India are vital constitutional institutions that uphold the integrity of public recruitment. Their independence and impartiality are safeguarded by constitutional provisions. However, they are not above the law, and their actions are open to judicial review when challenged for arbitrariness, procedural violations, or bias.
Through judicial precedents, courts have ensured that PSCs act within the ambit of fairness, transparency, and constitutional discipline, reinforcing public trust in the recruitment process.
RELATED Blog
0 comments