Constitution of India
Article 319: Prohibition as to the holding of offices by members of Commission on ceasing to be such members
Part XIV — Services Under the Union and the States
Clause (a)
WHAT IT SAYS: The Chairman of the UPSC, on ceasing to hold office, shall be ineligible for further employment under the Government of India or under any State Government. WHAT IT MEANS: Total and absolute bar on any government employment after tenure — the strictest restriction among all PSC functionaries. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Post-Retirement Independence — ensures UPSC Chairman cannot be tempted by future government positions during tenure.
Clause (b)
WHAT IT SAYS: The Chairman of a State PSC, on ceasing to hold office, may be appointed Chairman or member of UPSC, or Chairman of any other State PSC — but is barred from all other government employment. WHAT IT MEANS: Limited upward mobility is permitted (to UPSC or another State PSC Chairmanship), but general government jobs are forbidden. KEY DOCTRINE: Principle of Hierarchical Eligibility — allows experienced State PSC heads to serve in higher or equivalent constitutional positions only.
Clause (c)
WHAT IT SAYS: A member (other than Chairman) of the UPSC, on ceasing to hold office, is eligible for appointment as Chairman of the UPSC or as Chairman of a State PSC — but barred from any other government employment. WHAT IT MEANS: UPSC members may rise to become UPSC Chairman or State PSC Chairman, but cannot take any other government post. KEY DOCTRINE: Intra-institutional career progression — preserves merit-based elevation within PSC framework while preventing external government patronage.
Clause (d)
WHAT IT SAYS: A member (other than Chairman) of a State PSC, on ceasing to hold office, is eligible for appointment as Chairman or member of UPSC, or Chairman of that or any other State PSC — but barred from any other government employment. WHAT IT MEANS: Widest eligibility among PSC functionaries — can move to UPSC (as member or Chairman) or become Chairman of same/different State PSC, but no other government job. KEY DOCTRINE: Federal Mobility Principle — recognises that State PSC members may contribute at Union or other State levels, while maintaining the employment bar.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 — Sections 264–266 Original provision: Established Federal and Provincial Public Service Commissions with protections for independence of members. What India kept: The basic framework of Union and State PSCs, fixed tenure, and post-retirement employment restrictions. 2. British Civil Service Commission model (Northcote-Trevelyan Report, 1854) Original provision: Independent civil service recruitment body insulated from political patronage. What India kept: The concept of constitutional autonomy for recruitment bodies. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Graded restrictions (clauses a–d) — India created a four-tier hierarchy of restrictions rather than a blanket ban, reflecting the federal structure with distinct Union and State commissions. 2. Internal career mobility preserved — Unlike the British model, Indian framers explicitly allowed members to be elevated to Chairman, recognising the need for institutional continuity. 3. Constitutional-level prohibition — Unlike the UK where such restrictions are statutory, India embedded them in the Constitution itself to prevent easy dilution by Parliament.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 22 August 1949 (CAD Volume IX) KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Drafting Committee Chairman) — Introduced Draft Article 285C as a new addition; argued members of PSC must be insulated from executive enticement, including honorary positions. 2. A member proposed substituting 'employment' with 'office of profit' — Argued that the word 'employment' was too narrow and would not cover positions with monetary benefits that may not qualify as employment. 3. Another member proposed a 12-year cap — Suggested total period of service of a member across different PSCs should not exceed 12 years, to prevent executive favouritism through reappointments. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. 'Employment' vs. 'Office of Profit' — A member wanted the wider term 'office of profit' to cover honorary or non-salaried positions; Ambedkar rejected this, insisting on 'employment' to prevent even honorary enticements. 2. Cap on total service period — The 12-year cap proposal was debated but ultimately withdrawn. FINAL OUTCOME: All proposed amendments were withdrawn; Draft Article 285C was adopted as moved by Dr. Ambedkar on the same day without modification. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE: The purpose of the Draft Article is to ensure that members of the Public Service Commission are independent from the influence of the executive and they should not be enticed with any honorary position.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Hargovind Pant v. Dr. Raghukul Tilak (1979) — SC held the office of Governor is not 'employment under the Government of India' within Art. 319(d); a former State PSC member could validly be appointed Governor. 2. State of Mysore v. R.V. Bidap (1973) — SC held the offices of 'Member' and 'Chairman' of a PSC are distinct; a member appointed Chairman gets a fresh six-year term, interpreting Art. 319 read with Art. 316. 3. Union of India v. U.D. Dwivedi (1996) — SC held that Art. 319(c) bars 'any other employment' including contractual engagements; a former UPSC member serving as Chairman of an assessment board under DRDO was unconstitutional. 4. S. Subramaniam v. State of Kerala (Kerala HC, 2020) — Held that statutory posts like Lokayukta or Backward Classes Commission Chairperson are not 'employment under the Government' and do not violate Art. 319(d). NOTABLE DISSENTS (if any): 1. No notable recorded dissents in the above SC judgments; the Bidap case resolved a divergence between Calcutta HC (majority view) and Mysore/Orissa/Patna HCs (minority view), adopting the minority position. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer (in Bidap, 1973) — Emphasised Art. 319's purpose is to 'maintain purity in service by prohibiting temptation for future offices or employment.' 2. Second Administrative Reforms Commission — Recommended measures to enhance transparency and accountability of PSCs, including stricter scrutiny of post-retirement employment conditions.