STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus MANJIT SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 856 · Decided: 16-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
v. 
MANJIT SINGH AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 
[BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Article 320-Public Service Cimmissions-
Powers of-Recruitment on reserved posts-Interview of candidates having 
certain educational qualifications being the method prescribed by 
C Government-Commission prescribing an additional screening test with 
minimum qualifying marks for ensuring efficiency in public administration-
Held, not permissible-Commission must conform to the provisions of law, 
rules and regulations and take into account the policy decisions of the 
Government-No extra qualification can be imposed by the Commission 
D if the Government does not prescribe any special qualification in case of 
reserved posts-Articles 16(4) and 335. 
Service Law-Recruitment-Government providing for recruitment 
on the basis of interview of candidates having certain educational 
qualifications-Public Service Commission adding a screening test and 
E also providing for minimum qualifying marks for short listing app/icants-
Held, fixation of minimum qualifying marks may defeat the purpose of short 
listing-Fixation of minimum qualifying marks for short listing not desirable 
nor required. 
F 
The Punjab Public Service Commission issued an advertisement 
for recruitment of medical officers. The mode of selection prescribed 
by the State Government was only interview of eligible candidates on 
the basis of their educational qualifications. The policy of the 
Government was that candidates belonging to reserved categories 
G possessing minimum qualification/experience should not be put to any 
test to cheek their suitability for appointment. 
Out of the 500 vacancies advertised, 62 seats were reserved for 
Balmikis and Majhbi Sikhs and 63 seats were reserved for Scheduled 
Casts (General) candidates. 303 Scheduled Castes (General) candidates 
H and 27 Balmikis and Majhbi Sikhs applied pursuant to the 
856 
STAJ'E v. MANJIT SINGH 
857 
advertisement After receiving the applications, the Commission notified A 
that it would hold a screening test for all categories of candidates and 
only those who qualify the screening test would be called for interview. 
The Commission fixed 40% marks in the screening test as the minimum 
qualifying marks for candidates in the reserved category. As a result 
of the screening test only 59 Scheduled Castes (General) candidates B 
and 4 Balmikis and Majhbi Sikhs could qualify for the interview. 
The aggrieved candidates challenged the method adopted by the 
Commission. The High Court struck down the methodology adopted 
by the Commission in holding the screening test and prescribing the 
minimum qualifying marks as unreasonable and arbitrary. 
C 
The Commission and the State Government filed appeals before 
this Court. The Commission contended that it was a constitutional and 
independent authority and was duty bound to make endeavour to 
secure efficiency in public administration. While doing so the D 
Commission would not be subservient to the direction of the State 
Government unless permissible under the law. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The Public Service Commission derives its powers E 
under Article 320 of the Constitution of India as well as its limits too. 
Independent and fair working of the Public Service Commission is of 
utmost importance. It is also not supposed to function under any pressure 
of the Government. Bu tat the same time it has to conform to the provisions 
of the law and has to abide by the rules and regulations on the subject and F 
to take into account the policy decisions which are within the domain of 
the State Government. It cannot impose its own policy decision in a 
matter beyond its purview. [870-E-F) 
Dr. Sadhna Devi & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1997) 3 sec 90, G 
distinguished. 
1.2. It would ·be a matter of policy to be decided by the State 
Government as to what measures, if necessary, may be provided 
regarding reservations vis-a-vis maintenance of efficiency in services. 
Where no special qualification or any prescribed standard of efficiency H 
858 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A over and above the eligibility criteria is provided by the Rules or the 
State, it would not be for the Public Service Commission to impose any 
extra qualification/standard supposedly for maintaining minimum 
efficiency which it thinks, may be necessary. No consultation with the 
Public Service Commissio

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.