Constitution of India
Article 315: Public Service Commissions for the Union and for the States
Part XIV — Services under the Union and the States (Chapter II — Public Service Commissions)
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: There shall be a Public Service Commission for the Union and a Public Service Commission for each State, subject to the other provisions of this article. WHAT IT MEANS: Mandates the creation of UPSC at the Centre and a separate SPSC in every State as independent constitutional bodies for recruitment. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Constitutional Mandate — PSCs are not discretionary; their establishment is constitutionally obligatory.
Clause (2)
WHAT IT SAYS: Two or more States may agree to have one common PSC; if a resolution is passed by each House of each such State Legislature, Parliament may by law create a Joint State Public Service Commission (JSPSC). WHAT IT MEANS: Enables cooperative federalism in recruitment — States can voluntarily pool resources through a JSPSC, but Parliament must legislate for its formal creation. KEY DOCTRINE: Principle of Cooperative Federalism — joint machinery requires both State consent (via legislative resolution) and parliamentary sanction.
Clause (3)
WHAT IT SAYS: Any law creating a JSPSC under clause (2) may contain incidental and consequential provisions necessary or desirable for giving effect to its purposes. WHAT IT MEANS: Gives Parliament a wide enabling power to make ancillary provisions (staffing, transitional arrangements, etc.) when establishing a JSPSC. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Incidental and Ancillary Powers — Parliament can legislate all necessary supplementary matters.
Clause (4)
WHAT IT SAYS: The UPSC, if requested by the Governor of a State, may, with the approval of the President, agree to serve all or any of the needs of that State. WHAT IT MEANS: Allows the UPSC to assist or substitute for a State PSC — useful for smaller States lacking resources or during vacancies in the SPSC. KEY DOCTRINE: Principle of Central Assistance — enabling provision for Union–State cooperation, safeguarding recruitment standards in resource-constrained States.
Clause (5)
WHAT IT SAYS: References in the Constitution to the UPSC or a SPSC shall, unless context otherwise requires, be construed as references to the Commission serving the needs of the Union or the State in the particular matter in question. WHAT IT MEANS: An interpretation clause ensuring that wherever 'UPSC' or 'SPSC' appears in the Constitution, it contextually means whichever Commission (including JSPSC) is actually serving that government's needs. KEY DOCTRINE: Rule of Contextual Construction — constitutional references to PSCs are functional, not nominal.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 — Sections 264–266 (Federal and Provincial Public Service Commissions) Original provision: Section 265 provided for appointment of PSC members by the Governor-General (Federal) and Governors (Provincial) in their discretion, with at least one-half having held office for 10+ years. What India kept: The three-tier structure — Federal (now Union) PSC, Provincial (now State) PSC, and Joint PSC — was adopted almost in toto. 2. Lee Commission Report, 1924 (UK) — Recommended establishment of a Public Service Commission for India. Original provision: Proposed a neutral body for civil service recruitment to replace arbitrary colonial appointment practices. What India kept: The foundational idea of an independent, constitutionally protected recruitment body. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Constitutional status (not merely statutory) — Why: To insulate PSCs from executive interference and ensure permanence beyond ordinary legislative repeal. 2. Mandatory PSC for each State (not at executive discretion) — Why: India's federal structure with diverse States required each State to have its own guaranteed recruitment body. 3. UPSC assisting States on request [Clause (4)] — Why: Post-independence, many States (especially former princely states) lacked administrative infrastructure for independent recruitment. 4. Parliament's role in creating JSPSCs — Why: The Constituent Assembly felt that deviation from the norm (one PSC per State) should require democratic endorsement through legislative resolution plus parliamentary law.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 22 August 1949 (CAD Volume IX) Draft Article Number: Draft Article 284 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Bombay, General) — Moved the substituted text of Draft Article 284, proposing the five-clause structure establishing UPSC, SPSCs, and JSPSCs. 2. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal, Muslim) — Argued that Parliament's role in creating JSPSCs was unnecessary interference in provincial affairs; moved amendment to restore agreement-based formation without parliamentary legislation. 3. Dr. Rajendra Prasad (Assembly President) — Proposed the requirement that State legislatures must pass resolutions before a JSPSC can be established by Parliament. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Role of Parliament in JSPSC creation — Naziruddin Ahmad opposed Parliament's involvement as excessive centralisation; others argued a comprehensive constitutional framework was needed for smooth functioning. 2. Rigidity vs. Flexibility — Some members urged flexible provisions giving more discretion to Parliament; others insisted on a detailed constitutional framework to safeguard PSC independence. FINAL OUTCOME: The Assembly rejected Naziruddin Ahmad's amendments and accepted the President's amendment requiring State legislative resolutions; Draft Article 284 as amended was adopted on 22 August 1949. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE: "A Joint Commission is the State Commission. That is defined in clause (4) of article 284."
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417 — SC upheld PSC selections but directed viva voce marks be capped at 12.2% (general) and 25% (ex-servicemen) to prevent arbitrariness, reinforcing PSC autonomy while mandating procedural fairness. 2. State of Gujarat v. M.P. Chauhan (1997) — Held that the independence of the PSC is integral to ensuring fairness and impartiality in civil servant selection. 3. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) AIR SC 150 — Established that PSC selection processes must comply with principles of natural justice; even administrative bodies like PSCs must avoid any likelihood of bias. 4. D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (1993) 3 SCC 259 — Emphasised the role of fairness and transparency in public service recruitment, which PSCs are constitutionally designed to uphold. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. None of landmark significance directly on Article 315. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — Noted that Article 315 continues the institutional tradition of the Government of India Act, 1935, but elevates PSCs to constitutional status for greater independence. 2. M.P. Jain — Observed that the mandatory nature of PSC establishment under Article 315(1) ensures that no State can abolish its PSC by ordinary legislation, securing merit-based recruitment as a constitutional guarantee.