Constitution of India
Article 316: Appointment and term of office of members
Part XIV — Services under the Union and the States (Chapter II — Public Service Commissions)
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: The Chairman and members of a PSC are appointed by the President (for UPSC/Joint Commission) or the Governor (for State Commission); proviso requires approximately half the members to have held government office for at least 10 years. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Appointing authority differs based on whether it is Union, Joint, or State Commission. 2. The 10-year experience requirement ensures administrative expertise on every Commission. 3. Service under the Crown or an Indian State before 1950 counts towards the 10-year period. KEY DOCTRINE: The proviso to Clause (1) is directory, not mandatory — the expression 'as nearly as may be' permits reasonable departure (Jai Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1993).
Clause (1A) [Inserted by 15th Amendment Act, 1963]
WHAT IT SAYS: If the Chairman's office becomes vacant or the Chairman is absent or unable to perform duties, the President (for UPSC/Joint Commission) or Governor (for State Commission) may appoint another member to act as Chairman. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Ensures continuity of Commission's functioning without interruption. 2. Acting Chairman serves until a new Chairman is appointed under Clause (1) or the original Chairman resumes duties. 3. This clause was absent in the original 1950 text — lacuna filled in 1963. KEY DOCTRINE: Acting Chairman Doctrine — an existing member is designated, not a fresh outsider, preserving institutional integrity.
Clause (2)
WHAT IT SAYS: A member holds office for 6 years from the date of entering office, OR until attaining age 65 (UPSC) / age 62 (State/Joint Commission), whichever is earlier; a member may resign by writing to the President or Governor; removal is governed by Article 317. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Fixed tenure + age ceiling = dual safeguard for regular turnover. 2. Original age for State PSC members was 60 years — raised to 62 by the 41st Amendment Act, 1976. 3. Resignation is voluntary and addressed to the appointing authority. 4. Removal requires Supreme Court inquiry under Article 317 — high protection. KEY DOCTRINE: Fresh Term Doctrine — when a member is elevated to Chairman mid-term, a new 6-year term begins from the date of assuming chairmanship (State of Mysore v. R.V. Bidap, 1973).
Clause (3)
WHAT IT SAYS: A person who has held office as a member of a PSC is ineligible for re-appointment to that office upon expiration of his term. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Bar on re-appointment prevents executive influence through renewal threats. 2. A member CAN be appointed as Chairman — that is a different 'office' under Article 319. 3. Protects the independence of the Commission from executive patronage. KEY DOCTRINE: Anti-Patronage Principle — the bar on re-appointment insulates members from currying favour with the executive for term extensions.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 — Section 265 (Federal/Provincial Public Service Commissions) Original provision: Established Federal PSC and Provincial PSCs with members appointed by the Crown's representative, at least half from government service for 10 years. What India kept: The basic structure of appointment by executive head, the 10-year service requirement for half the members, and tenure-cum-age ceiling. 2. Lee Commission Report, 1924 — Recommended creation of a permanent Public Service Commission to insulate civil service recruitment from political interference. What India kept: The principle of an independent, constitutionally protected recruitment body. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Federal structure: Separate provisions for UPSC, State PSC, and Joint PSC — the 1935 Act only had Federal and Provincial; Joint PSCs are India's innovation for cooperative federalism. 2. Age ceiling differentiation: 65 for UPSC, 62 for State/Joint PSC — reflecting the higher stature of the Union Commission. 3. Absolute bar on re-appointment (Clause 3): The 1935 Act used 'at least half'; India softened to 'as nearly as may be' for practical flexibility, while adding a stricter anti-re-appointment bar. 4. Constitutional (not statutory) status: Unlike the 1935 Act where PSCs were statutory, India elevated them to constitutional bodies in Part XIV for greater independence.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 22 August 1949, 23 August 1949 (CAD Volume IX) KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Drafting Committee Chairman) — Moved amendment to split original Draft Article 285 into separate articles (285, 285-A, 285-B, 285-C); defended the 10-year service requirement for half the members as necessary for administrative experience on the Commission. 2. Unnamed Member (per constitutionofindia.net record) — Argued that the proviso requiring half members to have 10 years' government service unfairly advantaged civil servants and created a 'close preserve' for them. 3. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal) — Raised drafting objections about the format of the new split articles; called for clearer expression of changes. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Proportion of service members — Some members wanted the ratio reduced from one-half to one-third; the Home Ministry favoured even stronger service representation; the Drafting Committee retained one-half. 2. Risk of extended patronage — Concern that a member could be transferred from one PSC chairmanship to another, potentially serving indefinitely; partially addressed by Article 319 restrictions. FINAL OUTCOME: Draft Article 285 was split into Articles 316 (appointment and tenure), 316-A (now 317, removal), 316-B (now 319, post-retirement restrictions), and 316-C (now 318, regulations); the one-half service requirement was retained with softened language ('as nearly as may be'). AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE: "If any point is raised in the course of the debate, I will explain it in the course of my reply."
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. State of Mysore v. R.V. Bidap (1973) AIR SC 2555 — A PSC member appointed Chairman mid-term gets a fresh 6-year tenure from the date of assuming chairmanship; member and Chairman are distinct offices under Article 316(2). 2. Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) AIR 1987 SC 454 — Appointments to PSC under Article 316 are valid if constitutional requirements are met; courts cannot inquire into integrity or calibre beyond constitutional mandate; Doctrine of Necessity applied to PSC selections. 3. Jai Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar (1993) AIR SC 1906 — The proviso to Article 316(1) requiring 'as nearly as may be one-half' service members is directory, not mandatory; blindness is not a disqualification for PSC membership. 4. In Re Mepungtadar Bage (APPSC, 2025) — Supreme Court clarified that removal under Article 317 requires proof of specific individual acts of misbehaviour; tenure protections under 316(2) remain robust. NOTABLE DISSENTS (if any): 1. Dhirendra Krishna Biswas case (Calcutta HC, 1966) — Majority held Chairman's tenure runs from original member appointment date; this majority view was overruled by the Supreme Court in R.V. Bidap (1973). SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer (in R.V. Bidap) — Articulated the 'anti-patronage' rationale behind Articles 316-319, noting the narrow tenure and re-appointment bar are designed to keep the Commission above executive suspicion. 2. D.D. Basu — Observed that Article 316 ensures independence through a combination of fixed tenure, age ceiling, and re-appointment bar, modeled on but stronger than the Government of India Act, 1935.