Constitution of India
Article 320: Functions of Public Service Commissions
Part XIV — Services Under the Union and the States (Chapter II — Public Service Commissions)
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: It shall be the duty of the UPSC and State PSCs to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the Union and the services of the State respectively. WHAT IT MEANS: Conducting recruitment examinations is a constitutional obligation — not discretionary — for both UPSC and State PSCs. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of merit-based recruitment — PSC examinations are the constitutionally mandated gateway to civil services.
Clause (2)
WHAT IT SAYS: UPSC shall, if requested by two or more States, assist those States in framing and operating schemes of joint recruitment for services requiring candidates with special qualifications. WHAT IT MEANS: States can pool resources through UPSC for specialised recruitment — reduces duplication and ensures uniform standards across States. KEY DOCTRINE: Cooperative federalism in recruitment — States voluntarily request UPSC assistance; UPSC cannot impose joint schemes.
Clause (3) with Proviso — Sub-clauses (a) to (e)
WHAT IT SAYS: The UPSC or State PSC shall be consulted on: (a) Methods of recruitment to civil services and posts. (b) Principles for appointments, promotions, transfers, and suitability of candidates. (c) All disciplinary matters affecting civil servants, including memorials/petitions. (d) Claims for reimbursement of legal defence costs from the Consolidated Fund. (e) Claims for pension for injuries sustained in civil service. PSC must also advise on any other matter referred by the President or Governor. PROVISO: President (for All-India and Union services) and Governor (for State services) may make regulations exempting certain matters from PSC consultation. WHAT IT MEANS: PSC consultation is the default rule for recruitment, service matters, and disciplinary issues — but the executive retains power to create exemptions by regulation. KEY DOCTRINE: Consultation is directory, not mandatory — non-consultation does not invalidate government action (State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, 1957). PSC advice is persuasive but not binding.
Clause (4)
WHAT IT SAYS: Nothing in Clause (3) requires PSC consultation on: (i) manner of making reservations under Article 16(4), or (ii) manner of giving effect to Article 335 (claims of SCs/STs in services). WHAT IT MEANS: Reservation policy for backward classes and SC/ST representation in services is purely an executive/legislative domain — PSC has no role in deciding how reservations are implemented. KEY DOCTRINE: Reservation autonomy principle — social justice measures are insulated from PSC oversight to prevent technocratic obstruction of affirmative action.
Clause (5)
WHAT IT SAYS: All regulations made under the Proviso to Clause (3) by the President or Governor shall be laid before each House of Parliament or State Legislature for not less than 14 days, and shall be subject to modifications (including repeal or amendment) by the Legislature. WHAT IT MEANS: Executive exemptions from PSC consultation are subject to parliamentary/legislative scrutiny — ensures democratic accountability over any dilution of PSC's consultative role. KEY DOCTRINE: Legislative oversight doctrine — executive regulations cannot bypass PSC consultation without legislative approval.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 — Sections 264–266 (Public Service Commissions) Original provision: The 1935 Act established Federal and Provincial Public Service Commissions with duties to conduct examinations and be consulted on disciplinary matters and service conditions. What India kept: The structure of UPSC and State PSCs, the duty to conduct exams, and the consultative role on recruitment, promotions, and disciplinary matters. 2. British Civil Service Commission (UK model, established 1855) Original provision: Independent body to ensure merit-based recruitment to the civil service through competitive examinations. What India kept: The principle of independent constitutional body conducting competitive examinations free from political interference. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Made PSC consultation the default rule with Proviso for executive exemptions — The 1935 Act gave the Governor-General unfettered discretion; India balanced PSC role with executive flexibility. 2. Added Clause (4) excluding reservations from PSC consultation — Framers ensured social justice policies under Articles 16(4) and 335 would not be obstructed by PSC technicalities. 3. Added Clause (5) requiring legislative scrutiny of exemption regulations — India democratised the oversight mechanism that was absent in the colonial Act. 4. Empowered UPSC to assist States in joint recruitment (Clause 2) — Original Indian contribution reflecting cooperative federalism needs of a diverse nation.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 23 August 1949 (CAD Volume IX) KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Drafting Committee Chairman) — Moved a substituted version of Draft Article 286 with two new clauses: a proviso to Clause (3) allowing executive exemptions and Clause (5) requiring regulations to be laid before Parliament. 2. Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru (United Provinces, General) — Praised the revised articles as a great improvement over the Government of India Act, 1935, and the original Draft Constitution provisions. 3. One unnamed Member — Moved to delete Clause (2) on UPSC assisting States in joint recruitment, arguing it was redundant and covered by a previous article. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Deletion of Clause (2) — A member felt joint recruitment provision was redundant; Ambedkar opposed deletion. 2. Consultation on all recruitment matters — Another member argued the consultation clause and examination criteria would keep general masses away from civil services and benefit only a small part of the population. FINAL OUTCOME: All proposed amendments were rejected; the Drafting Committee's substituted version of Draft Article 286 was adopted by the Assembly on the same day. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE: "We have studied a great deal the provisions in the Canadian law and the Australian law, and we have succeeded in finding out a via media."
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava (AIR 1957 SC 912) — Article 320(3)(c) is directory, not mandatory; non-consultation with PSC does not invalidate disciplinary action against a civil servant and does not confer enforceable rights. 2. Pradyat Kumar Bose v. Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court (AIR 1956 SC 285) — Article 320(3) does not apply to High Court staff, as it is inconsistent with Article 229; Chief Justice need not consult PSC for dismissal of HC employees. 3. Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab ((1985) 1 SCC 122) — Held that Article 320 makes consultation with PSC directory, not mandatory; PSC's role is advisory and its recommendations are not binding on the Government. 4. State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha ((1974) 3 SCC 220) — PSC recommendation does not create an indefeasible right to appointment; the Government retains discretion to set higher selection standards beyond minimum qualifying marks. NOTABLE DISSENTS (if any): 1. No major recorded dissent — the directory nature of Article 320(3) has been consistently upheld since the Manbodhan Lal Constitution Bench decision. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. M.P. Jain — Observed that making PSC consultation directory rather than mandatory weakens the constitutional safeguard for civil servants in disciplinary matters. 2. D.D. Basu — Noted that Article 320 establishes PSCs as advisory bodies whose strength lies in moral authority and the requirement under Article 323 for the Government to explain reasons for non-acceptance of PSC advice.