Constitution of India
Article 318: Power to make regulations as to conditions of service of members and staff of the Commission
Part XIV — Services Under the Union and the States (Chapter II — Public Service Commissions)
Clause (a)
WHAT IT SAYS: The President (for UPSC/Joint Commission) or Governor (for State PSC) may by regulations determine the number of members of the Commission and their conditions of service. WHAT IT MEANS: The executive head — not Parliament or the Legislature — has direct constitutional authority to fix the strength and service terms of PSC members through delegated regulations. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Executive Regulatory Power — regulatory power under Art. 318 is constitutional in nature, not subordinate legislation.
Clause (b)
WHAT IT SAYS: The President or Governor may by regulations make provision with respect to the number of members of the staff of the Commission and their conditions of service. WHAT IT MEANS: Staff strength and employment terms of PSC secretariat personnel are also fixed by executive regulation, giving PSCs administrative flexibility without legislative intervention. KEY DOCTRINE: Administrative Autonomy Doctrine — PSC staffing is insulated from day-to-day legislative control to preserve institutional independence.
Proviso
WHAT IT SAYS: The conditions of service of a member of a Public Service Commission shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment. WHAT IT MEANS: Once a PSC member is appointed, their salary, allowances, pension, and other service benefits cannot be reduced or made worse — this is a constitutional guarantee of non-diminution. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Non-Disadvantageous Variation — mirrors the protection given to Supreme Court and High Court judges under Arts. 125 and 221 to safeguard institutional independence.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 — Sections 264–266 (Part X: Public Service Commissions) Original provision: The 1935 Act established a Federal Public Service Commission and Provincial PSCs with the Governor-General/Governor empowered to make rules regarding their conditions of service. What India kept: The basic framework of executive regulation-making power for PSC member and staff service conditions. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Regulatory power vested in President/Governor directly — under the 1935 Act, rules were made by the Crown's representative; India democratised this by placing it with the constitutionally elected executive head. 2. Proviso protecting service conditions from disadvantageous variation — a uniquely strengthened Indian safeguard absent in the 1935 Act in explicit constitutional form. 3. Coverage of Joint Public Service Commissions — Art. 318 covers Joint Commissions (Art. 315(2)), a federal innovation not present in the 1935 Act which only had Federal and Provincial PSCs.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 22 August 1949 (CAD Volume IX) KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Drafting Committee Chairman) — Introduced Draft Article 285B empowering the President and Governor to regulate PSC member numbers and service conditions. 2. A member proposed that the President/Governor should make provisions only after consulting the Service Commission Chairman. 3. Another member proposed that the Commission itself should determine its members' service conditions, not the President or Governor. 4. A third member moved to replace 'President' and 'Governor' with 'Parliament or State Legislatures' to make it a legislative power. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Executive vs. Legislative control — Whether regulation-making power should vest in the executive (President/Governor) or the legislature (Parliament/State Legislatures). 2. PSC autonomy — Whether the Commission Chairman should have a consultative or determinative role in fixing service conditions. FINAL OUTCOME: All proposed amendments were either withdrawn or rejected; the Draft Article was adopted without any amendment on the same day. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE (if available): Not specifically recorded in available CAD summaries for this article — the article was introduced and adopted swiftly as part of a batch of PSC-related provisions.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Bhagat Ram Sharma v. Union of India (1988) — The Supreme Court examined regulations framed by the Governor of Punjab under Art. 318 and held that the executive cannot use regulatory power to retrospectively deprive PSC members of benefits received upon appointment. 2. Bihar Public Service Commission v. Dr. Shiv Jatan Thakur (1994) — The Supreme Court considered Art. 316(1) read with regulations under Art. 318 regarding the composition and number of BPSC members, and limited judicial interference in PSC affairs. 3. Ram Phal Singh v. State of Haryana (2004) — The Court held that a regulation restricting a PSC member's remuneration below what he drew in government service violated the proviso to Clause (b) of Art. 318 and struck it down. 4. State of Punjab v. Salil Sabhlok (2013) — The Supreme Court held that the High Court can issue mandamus directing the State Government to frame regulations under Art. 318 for PSC appointments and can quash appointments made without following proper procedure. NOTABLE DISSENTS (if any): 1. No widely reported dissents specifically on Art. 318 interpretation. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — Art. 318 ensures the President/Governor acts as a constitutional regulator, not a political master, of the PSC machinery; the proviso is a vital safeguard of independence. 2. M.P. Jain — The regulatory power under Art. 318 is sui generis — neither purely executive nor legislative — and the non-disadvantageous variation proviso is key to PSC autonomy.