# Mandeep Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab and Ors

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 834
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-07-14
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 9471 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sudhanshu Dhulia, K. Vinod Chandran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mandeep-singh-ors-v-state-of-punjab-and-ors-38518
- **Pages:** 36

## Headnote

The matter pertains to legality of recruitment/selection of Assistant
Professors and Librarians in Government Degree colleges of
Punjab. The Division Bench of the High Court has reversed the
findings of the Single Judge and has thereby upheld the selections
made by the State. Whether there is a gross illegality in the
recruitment process.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India - Art.320 - Punjab Public Service
Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1955 - UGC
(Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other
Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures
for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education)
Regulations, 2010 - Recruitment - Legality of recruitment of
Assistant Professors and Librarians, in Government Degree
Colleges in the State - The Single Judge of the High Court
quashed the entire recruitment process for being in violation
of law inasmuch as the Commission not having been excluded
as per procedure prescribed and State having not followed
the UGC guidelines and adopting an arbitrary process for the
recruitment - In intra-court appeals, vide the impugned order
dated 23.09.2024, the Division Bench of the High Court upheld
the recruitment by quashing the order passed by the Single
Judge of the High Court - Correctness:
Held: In the present case, the State has miserably failed to justify
the departure from the standard norms of the recruitment process -
There is a gross illegality in the recruitment process - Art.320(3) of
the Constitution provides that the Commission shall be consulted
* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
35
Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.
in the recruitment of different services - This Court in Manbodhan
Lal Srivastava, had recognised the importance of Regulations
framed under the proviso to Art.320(3) of the Constitution and had
cautioned against the casual bypassing of the Regulations - In the
case at hand, Regulations as contemplated under the Proviso were
already in existence in Punjab known as Punjab Public Service
Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1955 - The
posts of Assistant Professors and Librarians in Degree Colleges
were within the purview of the Commission - Thus, selection of
these posts was within the purview of the State Commission, and
it was mandatory that it ought to be consulted - The respondents
have tried to meet this deficiency by stating that the State had
amended the 1955 Regulations in March 2022 (by retrospective
effect), by mentioning these posts in the 1955 Regulations and
these posts were then taken out from the purview of Commission -
However, the amendment was made after concluding the entire
recruitment process and giving appointment letters to the selected
candidates - It was hence a post facto exercise - The 1955
Regulations prescribed a procedure under which posts within the
purview of the Commission could be withdrawn - It is admitted that
in the present case the required procedure was not followed - In
case the State government was dissatisfied with the manner in
which the Commission was conducting the recruitment ought to
have followed the due procedure and withdrawn the posts from
the purview of the Commission in accordance with the 1955
Regulations - As far as UGC Regulations are concerned, a method
of selection to these posts is also provided in the 2010 UGC
Regulations which has not been followed in the present case -
Besides that, there are multiple deficiencies - The giving away of
a rigorous criteria laid down in the UGC regulations with a single,
multiple-choice question based written test, and the complete
elimination of the viva-voce, all establish the arbitrary nature of
the exercise which cannot pass the test of reasonableness laid
down u/Art.14 of the Constitution - Hence, the Single Judge had
rightly struck down the entire selection process, and the Division
Bench of the High Court erred in interfering with that conclusion.
[Paras 9, 24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 40, 56, 59, 60]
UGC Act, 1956 - UGC Regu

## Text

_Characters 0–39,753 of 81,436. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39753 for what follows._

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 34 : 2025 INSC 834
Mandeep Singh & Ors.
v.
State of Punjab and Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 9471 of 2025)
14 July 2025
[Sudhanshu Dhulia* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The matter pertains to legality of recruitment/selection of Assistant
Professors and Librarians in Government Degree colleges of
Punjab. The Division Bench of the High Court has reversed the
findings of the Single Judge and has thereby upheld the selections
made by the State. Whether there is a gross illegality in the
recruitment process.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India - Art.320 - Punjab Public Service
Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1955 - UGC
(Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other
Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures
for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education)
Regulations, 2010 - Recruitment - Legality of recruitment of
Assistant Professors and Librarians, in Government Degree
Colleges in the State - The Single Judge of the High Court
quashed the entire recruitment process for being in violation
of law inasmuch as the Commission not having been excluded
as per procedure prescribed and State having not followed
the UGC guidelines and adopting an arbitrary process for the
recruitment - In intra-court appeals, vide the impugned order
dated 23.09.2024, the Division Bench of the High Court upheld
the recruitment by quashing the order passed by the Single
Judge of the High Court - Correctness:
Held: In the present case, the State has miserably failed to justify
the departure from the standard norms of the recruitment process -
There is a gross illegality in the recruitment process - Art.320(3) of
the Constitution provides that the Commission shall be consulted
* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
35
Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.
in the recruitment of different services - This Court in Manbodhan
Lal Srivastava, had recognised the importance of Regulations
framed under the proviso to Art.320(3) of the Constitution and had
cautioned against the casual bypassing of the Regulations - In the
case at hand, Regulations as contemplated under the Proviso were
already in existence in Punjab known as Punjab Public Service
Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1955 - The
posts of Assistant Professors and Librarians in Degree Colleges
were within the purview of the Commission - Thus, selection of
these posts was within the purview of the State Commission, and
it was mandatory that it ought to be consulted - The respondents
have tried to meet this deficiency by stating that the State had
amended the 1955 Regulations in March 2022 (by retrospective
effect), by mentioning these posts in the 1955 Regulations and
these posts were then taken out from the purview of Commission -
However, the amendment was made after concluding the entire
recruitment process and giving appointment letters to the selected
candidates - It was hence a post facto exercise - The 1955
Regulations prescribed a procedure under which posts within the
purview of the Commission could be withdrawn - It is admitted that
in the present case the required procedure was not followed - In
case the State government was dissatisfied with the manner in
which the Commission was conducting the recruitment ought to
have followed the due procedure and withdrawn the posts from
the purview of the Commission in accordance with the 1955
Regulations - As far as UGC Regulations are concerned, a method
of selection to these posts is also provided in the 2010 UGC
Regulations which has not been followed in the present case -
Besides that, there are multiple deficiencies - The giving away of
a rigorous criteria laid down in the UGC regulations with a single,
multiple-choice question based written test, and the complete
elimination of the viva-voce, all establish the arbitrary nature of
the exercise which cannot pass the test of reasonableness laid
down u/Art.14 of the Constitution - Hence, the Single Judge had
rightly struck down the entire selection process, and the Division
Bench of the High Court erred in interfering with that conclusion.
[Paras 9, 24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 40, 56, 59, 60]
UGC Act, 1956 - UGC Regulations of 2010 - UGC Regulations
2018 - The distinction between adoption by incorporation as
opposed to reference - Discussed:
36
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Held: The distinction here is that in case of adoption by incorporation,
the subsequent amendment or repeal of the incorporated statute
will be of no consequences on the incorporation - The adoption
then becomes frozen at the point in time when the incorporation
was made - But the question whether a provision of law is adopted
by reference or incorporation also depends upon the language of
the order/statute in which such provision is being adopted - It may
also depend upon the conduct of the State and how it has been
recognised and accepted in that State - 2018 UGC Regulations
may have repealed the 2010 UGC Regulations but still they were
being considered and recognised in the State of Punjab for all
purposes, even after its repeal - In the instant case, this Court
has already referred the order dated 30.07.2013 whereby the
State Government had adopted 2010 Regulations and the reasons
assigned by the State Government in doing so which was to uplift
the standard of higher education. [Para 38]
Constitution of India - Art.320(3) - Art.320(3)(a) - Nature and
Scope:
Held: Art.320(3) speaks of a variety of matters where the
Commission is to be consulted- (a) Recruitment in Service and
(c) disciplinary matters, being two such instances - Whereas
Art.320(3)(c) is generally concerned with individual matters relating
to disciplinary proceedings, Art.320(3)(a) deals with policy issues
where an entire recruitment process is at stake. [Para 20]
Constitution of India - Art.14 - Duties and Responsibilities of
State and its instrumentality:
Held: The State and its instrumentalities have a duty and
responsibility to act fairly and reasonably in terms of the mandate
of Art.14 of the Constitution - Any decision taken by the State must
be reasoned, and not arbitrary - This Court has consistently held
that when a thing is done in a post-haste manner, mala fides would
be presumed, and further that anything done in undue haste can
also be termed as arbitrary and cannot be condoned in law - In the
present case there are multiple deficiencies, as stated above - The
giving away of a rigorous criteria laid down in the UGC regulations
with a single, multiple-choice question based written test, and the
complete elimination of the viva-voce, all establish the arbitrary
nature of the exercise which cannot pass the test of reasonableness
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
37
Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.
laid down under Art.14 of the Constitution - Hence, the Single
Judge had rightly struck down the entire selection process, and
the Division Bench of the High Court erred in interfering with that
conclusion. [Paras 52, 56]
Public Service Commissions - Purpose, Role and Evolution
in India - Discussed. [Paras 8-16]
Case Law Cited
Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala [2023] 11 SCR 674 :
(2024) 3 SCC 799 - followed.
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India [1979] 2 SCR 1038 :
(1979) 2 SCC 529; Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International
Airport Authority of India [1979] 3 SCR 1014 : (1979) 3 SCC 489;
Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat [2022] 4 SCR 406 :
(2022) 5 SCC 179; State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational &
Research Institute [1995] 2 SCR 1075 : (1995) 4 SCC 104; Fuljit
Kaur v. State of Punjab [2010] 7 SCR 317 : (2010) 11 SCC 455;
Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia [2003]
Supp. 6 SCR 1023 : (2004) 2 SCC 65; Zenit Mataplast (P) Ltd. v.
State of Maharashtra [2009] 14 SCR 403 : (2009) 10 SCC 388;
Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO [2004] Supp. 6 SCR 264 :
(2005) 1 SCC 625 - relied on.
State of U.P v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava [1958] 1 SCR 533 :
1957 SCC OnLine SC 4; Kalyani Mathivanan v. KV Jeyaraj & Ors.
[2015] 3 SCR 467: (2015) 6 SCC 363; Cherukuri Mani v. Chief
Secretary, Govt of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. [2014] 6 SCR 750 :
(2015) 13 SCC 722; Dharmin Bai Kashyap v. Babli Sahu [2023]
11 SCR 150 : (2023) 10 SCC 461; Babu Verghese & Ors. v. Bar
Council of India & Ors. [1999] 1 SCR 1121 : (1999) 3 SCC 422 -
referred to.
Nazir Ahmed v. King-Emperor (LR 63 IA 372) - referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
Dr. Naresh Chandra Roy, The Working of the Public Service
Commission in Bengal, Indian Political Science Conference, Third
Session, Mysore, Dec 1940, p.192; Macaulay Committee Report;
Lee Commission in its report of 1924; Simon Commission Report.
38
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Government of India Act, 1919; Public Service
Commission (Function) Rules, 1926; Government of India Act, 1935;
UGC Act, 1956; Punjab Public Service Commission (Limitation of
Functions) Regulations, 1955; UGC (Minimum Qualifications for
Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities
and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in
Higher Education) Regulations, 2010; UGC Regulations, 2018;
Punjab Educational Service (College Cadre) (Class II) Rules, 1976.
List of Keywords
Service Law; Recruitment/selection of Assistant Professors and
Librarians; Duties and Responsibilities of State and its instrumentality;
Public Service Commissions; Departmental Selection Committee;
Article 320(3) & Article 320(3)(a) of Constitution; Distinction between
adoption by incorporation as opposed to reference; Departure from
the standard norms of the recruitment.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9471 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.09.2024 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 89 of 2023
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 9472 and 9473 of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Mrs. Rekha Palli, Sr. Adv., Preetesh Kapur, Sr. Adv, Nidhesh
Gupta, Sr. Adv., Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv., Chritarth Palli,
Vivek Sharma, Rajat Gupta, Mrs. Harsheen Madan Palli, Agam
Aggarwal, Karan Dewan, Miss Aanchal Jain, Ms. Anindita Mitra,
Vivek Sharma, Rajiv Sethi, Ms. Aditi Gupta.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Shadan Farasat, Sr.Adv./A.A.G., Vivek Jain, A.A.G., Kapil Sibal,
Rakesh Dwivedi, Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Sr. Advs., Vikrant
Pachnanda, Avinit Avasthi, Rishabh Parikh, Mukul Katyal, Yasir
Saifi, Talha Abdul Rahman, M Shaz Khan, Sudhanshu Tewari, Rafid
Akhter, Faizan Ahmad, Mohit D. Ram, Anup Jain, Ms. Nayan Gupta.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
39
Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
1.
Leave granted.
2.
The appellants before this Court have challenged the judgment dated
23.09.2024, of the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High
Court which has reversed the findings of the learned Single Judge
and has thereby upheld the selections made by the State of Punjab
for the posts of Assistant Professors and Librarians in Government
Degree colleges of Punjab.
3.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:
a.
In January 2021, the State of Punjab had sent separate requisitions
to the Punjab Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred
to as 'Commission'), for recruitment of 931 Assistant Professors
(dated 15.01.2021) and 50 Librarians (dated 29.01.2021), in
Government Degree Colleges in the State. Consequent to this
and based on correspondences exchanged, the Commission
engaged 24 subject experts to prepare the syllabus for the
competitive examinations and honorarium was paid to them.
b.
Later, an additional 160 posts of Assistant Professors and
17 posts for Librarians were created and sanctioned for
newly established colleges, and on 15.09.2021, the State's
Department of Higher Education (hereinafter referred to as
'the Department') sought Commission's consent to fill these
posts through the Departmental Selection Committee rather
than the Commission.
c.
The Commission replied by letter dated 16.09.2021, expressing
their inability to respond on the ground of the Chairman having
retired and the new appointment having not taken place. The
Government then by a memorandum dated 17.09.2021 approved
the recruitment of 160 and 17 posts of Assistant Professors
and Librarians respectively, through Departmental Selection
Committees which though had to follow the University Grants
Commission (hereinafter 'UGC') guidelines or regulations.
40
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
d.
A change in Government happened on 20.09.2021 after which
on 09.10.2021, the selection process was reviewed in a meeting
chaired by the Secretary, Department of Higher Education. In
this meeting, the entire process of recruitment was changed
and it was decided that selection would now be made only
on the basis of a Written Test, which will be conducted by
two separate selection committees of two State Universities:
(a) Punjab University, Patiala, and (b) the Guru Nanak Dev
University, Amritsar. Further, it was decided that all the 1091
posts (931 plus 160 posts) of Assistant Professors and 67 posts
(50 plus 17 posts) of Librarians; and not just the posts recently
created, are to be filled through these departmental selection
committees. This decision was placed for approval before the
Chief Minister on 12.10.2021, with the observation that it shall
subsequently be placed for approval before the Council of
Ministers; latter approval was never obtained.
e.
On 18.10.2021, Government issued a memorandum conveying
to Director Public Instructions (Colleges) (hereinafter 'DPI') the
decision for recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67
Librarians on the basis of two departmental selection committees
of two State Universities. On 19.10.2021, advertisements for
the above posts were issued.
f.
In a little over a month, the exam was conducted and the
result was announced on 28.11.2021. Meanwhile, in the first
week of November, Writ Petitions were filed before the High
Court, challenging the memorandum dated 18.10.2021 and
advertisements dated 19.10.2021. On 26.11.2021 in CWP No.
22446 of 2021, before the results were published, while issuing
notice, it was clarified that the selection shall be subject to the
result of the writ petition.
g.
Vide order dated 08.08.2022, the learned Single Judge allowed
the Writ Petitions and quashed the entire recruitment process
for being in violation of law inasmuch as the Commission not
having been excluded as per procedure prescribed and State
having not followed the UGC guidelines and adopting an arbitrary
process for the recruitment.
h.
Against the order of the learned Single Judge, the State of
Punjab as well as the candidates who were selected/appointed
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
41
Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.
filed intra-court appeals. Vide the impugned order dated
23.09.2024, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed these
intra-court appeals and upheld the recruitment by quashing the
order passed by the learned Single Judge. Assailing the same,
appellants are before us.
4.
Before the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench as well as
before this Court, the appellants' have been consistent in their
submission that the recruitment process was vitiated on more than
one count. Most importantly the recruitment was made in violation
of UGC Regulations of 2010 (hereinafter '2010 UGC Regulations')
which were adopted by the State of Punjab on 30.07.2013, and
which mandated an entirely different criterion and procedure for
recruitment. Further the selection to these posts ought to have been
made through the Commission, as admittedly these were the posts
within the purview of Commission [under Article 320 of the Constitution
of India read with Punjab Public Service Commission (Limitation of
Functions) Regulations, 1955 (hereinafter 'the 1955 Regulations')].
In any case, the entire process is arbitrary and was followed not in
the interest of the State or for the cause of higher education but for
narrow political gains.
5.
The State and the private respondents would though argue that Article
320(3) is directory and not mandatory in nature. They would submit
that the State government is empowered to decide its own method
and procedure of recruitment for the posts of Assistant Professors
and Librarians in Degree colleges under the State government; and
it is not bound to make these selections through the Commission.
6.
We have heard Senior Advocates Mr. Raju Ramchandran, Mr. Nidhesh
Gupta, Mr. Preetesh Kapur and Mrs. Rekha Palli appearing for the
appellants, and Senior Advocates Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi
and Mr. P.S. Patwalia for the private respondents. We have also
heard Mr. Shadan Farasat, Additional Advocate-General appearing
on behalf of the State of Punjab.
7.
It is first necessary to narrate the sequence of events and their
context as this would give us a better perspective. A large number
of posts of Assistant Professor and Librarians in Degree Colleges
remained unfilled for the last 20 years or so in Punjab. The last
selection to these posts was only made in the year 2002, and this
too got into trouble due to allegations of corruption which led to a
42
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
protracted litigation. Later, another recruitment was attempted in
the year 2008 for 265 posts which was again stuck in litigation for
many years. The issue of large unfilled vacancies in Punjab had
come earlier before this Court by the guest/part-time faculties where
a Three-Judge Bench of this Court vide its order dated 02.12.2014
had directed the Commission to fill the sanctioned vacant posts as
soon as possible. The relevant portion of that order reads as under:
"4. We do not intend to keep these Special Leave Petitions
on board. Accordingly, we dispose of the Special Leave
Petitions with an observation that the Punjab Public Service
Commission, Patiala will take all effective steps to fill up
all the sanctioned posts of the lecturers in the State of
Punjab as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within
12 months' time from today."
The argument of the State is that the main reason for these vacancies
remaining unfilled for all these years was that these posts were within
the purview of the Commission which had failed to fill these posts
and hence the decision taken by the State to remove these posts
from the purview of the Commission and to expedite the process of
selection was in public interest.
8.
The Commission has a duty to make selections for different
services in response to the requisition of the State government. In
the present case, in January 2021, the State government had sent
two requisitions for the recruitment of 931 Assistant Professors and
50 Librarians respectively, yet no decision had been taken by the
Commission.
9.
Article 320(3) of the Constitution provides that the Commission shall
be consulted in the recruitment of different services. The relevant
portion of Article 320 of the Constitution reads as follows:
"Article 320: Functions of Public Service Commissions-
(1)...
(2)...
(3) The Union Public Service Commission or the State
Public Service Commission, as the case may be, shall
be consulted-
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
43
Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.
(a) on all matters relating to methods of recruitment
to civil services and for civil posts;
(b) on the principles to be followed in making
appointments to civil services and posts and in
making promotions and transfers from one service to
another and on the suitability of candidates for such
appointments, promotions or transfers;
(c) on all disciplinary matters affecting a person
serving under the Government of India or the
Government of a State in a civil capacity, including
memorials or petitions relating to such matters;
(d) on any claim by or in respect of a person who is
serving or has served under the Government of India
or the Government of a State or under the Crown in
India or under the Government of an Indian State,
in a civil capacity, that any costs incurred by him in
defending legal proceedings instituted against him
in respect of acts done or purporting to be done in
the execution of his duty should be paid out of the
Consolidated Fund of India, or, as the case may be,
out of the Consolidated Fund of the State;
(e) on any claim for the award of a pension in respect
of injuries sustained by a person while serving under
the Government of India or the Government of a State
or under the Crown in India or under the Government
of an Indian State, in a civil capacity, and any question
as to the amount of any such award, and it shall be
the duty of a Public Service Commission to advise
on any matter so referred to them and on any other
matter which the President, or, as the case may be,
the Governor of the State, may refer to them:
Provided that the President as respects the all-India
services and also as respects other services and posts in
connection with the affairs of the Union, and the Governor,
as respects other services and posts in connection with
the affairs of a State, may make regulations specifying
the matters in which either generally, or in any particular
44
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
class of case or in any particular circumstances, it shall
not be necessary for a Public Service Commission to be
consulted."
Public Service Commission at the Union and at the State levels are
constitutional bodies. There is a purpose for which these institutions
have been created, which we shall discuss in a while. All the same,
it is not necessary that all posts in the States or Union must be filled
through Commission. It is not mandatory. But there is a method
prescribed under the law to take out these posts from the purview
of the Commission. This has been violated in the present case; is
the argument. But first, for the role of the Commission.
10. Impartiality, fairness and recognition of merit while selecting Public
Servants are absolutely necessary in modern democracies. The basic
purpose of a Union Public Service Commission or State Public Service
Commission(s) for that matter, is to remove impartiality and political
influence while making selection on Public Posts. It is necessary to
have an impartial Public Service Commission in a Democracy, or
everything will be reduced to a mere scramble for jobs1. The concept
is not new. It goes back to the Government of India Act, 1919, and
even earlier to the pre 1857 era. The East India Company, which
had under its administration a vast area, felt the need to replace
the system based on recommendations and nominations to a meritbased system, which was also the recommendation of the Macaulay
Committee Report2. A Civil Service Commission was then established
in 1854 to conduct competitive examinations which were held for
the first time in the year 1855.
11. It was the Government of India Act, 1919 that formally introduced
the concept of Public Service Commissions in India. Section
96C3 provided for the establishment of a Central Public Service
1
Dr. Naresh Chandra Roy, The Working of the Public Service Commission in Bengal, Indian Political
Science Conference, Third Session, Mysore, Dec 1940, p.192.
2
See Macaulay Report on the Indian Civil Service 1854.
3
Section 96C: Public Service Commission- (1) There shall be established in India a public service
commission, consisting of not more than five members, of whom one shall be chairman, appointed by
the Secretary of State in Council. Each member shall be removed before the expiry of his term of office,
except by order of the Secretary of State in Council. The qualifications for the appointment, and the pay
and pension (if any) attaching to the office of chairman and member, shall be prescribed by rules made
by the Secretary of State in Council.
(2) The public service commission shall discharge, in regard to recruitment and control of the public services
in India, such functions as may be assigned thereto by rules made by the Secretary of State in Council
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
45
Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.
Commission in India. But the Public Service Commission was not set
up immediately till its need was emphasized by the Lee Commission
in its report of 1924:
"Wherever democratic institutions exist, experience has
shown that to secure an efficient Civil Service it is essential
to protect it so far as possible from political or personal
influences and to give it that position of stability and security
which is vital to its successful working as the impartial and
efficient instrument by which Governments, of whatever
political complexion, may give effect to their policies. In
countries where this principle has been neglected, and
where the "spoils system" has taken place, an inefficient
and disorganized Civil Service has been the inevitable
result and corruption has been rampant. In America a
Civil Service Commission has been constituted to control
recruitment of the Services, but, for the purposes of
India it is from the Dominions of the British Empire that
more relevant and useful lessons can perhaps be drawn.
Canada, Australia and South Africa now possess Public
or Civil Services Acts regulating the position and control of
the Public Services, and a common feature of them all is
the constitution of a Public Service Commission, to which
the duty of administering the Acts is entrusted. It was this
need which framers of the Government of India Act had
in mind when they made provision in Section 96C for the
establishment of a Public Service Commission to discharge
"in regard to recruitment and control of the Public Services
in India such functions as may be assigned thereto by
rules made by the Secretary of State in Council". Since the
passing of the Act, a prolonged correspondence, extending
over nearly four years, has been passed between the
Secretary of State, the Government of India, and Local
Governments, regarding the function and machinery
of the body to be set up. No decisions have, however,
been arrived at, and the subject has been referred to this
Commission for consideration"4
4
Report of the Royal Commission on Superior Civil Services in India, dated 27th March, 1924 at pp.13-14
and 16.
46
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
12. It was based on the recommendation of the Lee Commission that
the Commission was formed as contemplated under the Government
of India Act, 1919. The Central Public Service Commission was
thus established in the year 1926, and its functions were governed
by the Public Service Commission (Function) Rules, 1926. Till this
stage, the role of a similar Commission at Provincial level was not
much in discussions.
13. It was only with the Simon Commission Report that we have an official
recommendation for the first time for the setting up of Provincial
Public Service Commissions. It is well-known that the formation of
the Simon Commission was resented by the leaders of the Indian
freedom struggle, primarily because it had no Indian representative,
and because senior officials of the British Raj had questioned the
very ability of Indians to draft a Constitution. In response, an all-party
committee under the chairmanship of Congress stalwart Motilal Nehru
was formed, which was tasked with drafting a Constitution for India.
The report submitted by this committee (which came to be known as
the Nehru Report) also favoured the creation of a Permanent Public
Service Commission to deal with issues such as the recruitment,
appointment, emoluments etc. of civil servants in India.
14. Finally, a Federal Public Service Commission and Public Service
Commissions for Provinces were established under Section 2645 of
the Government of India Act, 1935 and their functions were given in
Section 266, which was pari materia to Article 320 of the Constitution.
15. While the Constituent Assembly was busy in drafting the Constitution
for free India, the Public Service Commission at the Centre and in
some of the States were already functioning.
5
264. Public Service Commission: (1) Subject to the provisions of this Section, there shall be a Public
Service Commission for the Federation and a Public Service Commission for each Province.
(2) Two or more Provinces may agree-
(a) that there shall be one Public Service Commission for that group of Provinces; or
(b) that the Public Service Commission for one of the Provinces shall serve the needs of all the
Provinces,
and any such agreement may contain such incidental and consequential provisions as may appear
necessary or desirable for giving effect to the purposes of the agreement and shall, in the case of an
agreement that there shall be one Commission for a group of Provinces, specify by what Governor or
Governors the functions which are under this Part of this Act to be discharged by the Governor of a
Province are to be discharged.
(3) The Public Service Commission for the Federation, if requested so to do by the Governor of a
Province, may, with the approval of the Governor-General, agree to serve all or any of the needs of the
Province...
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
47
Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.
16. During discussion on Public Service Commissions in the Constituent
Assembly Debates, Dr. P.S Deshmukh highlighted the purpose and
importance of the Public Service Commissions in these words:
"...these Commissions are said to be a necessity of a
modern State. These Commissions are primarily meant
to keep appointments away from day to day politics,
party preferences and influences and the attempt is
made, by having recourse to these Commissions, that the
appointments shall be as far as possible on merit and there
shall be no interference in their choice or in their selection
from day to day by the executive authorities of the State."
17. Our entire purpose here of giving this background to the formation
of Public Service Commission in India both at the Union as well as
State level, was to emphasize the purpose for its establishment,
which was to have an impartial and autonomous body which should
select the best possible persons for Government posts, and to have
fairness and transparency in the procedure. The present dispute
which is before this Court reflects this concern.
18. Article 320(3)(a) of the Constitution, inter alia, states that the State
Public Service Commission "shall be consulted on all matters relating
to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts". The
provision appears to be mandatory as the words "shall be consulted"
suggest. All the same, the learned counsel for the respondents would
rely on a 1957 Constitution Bench decision of this Court in State of
U.P v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava 1957 SCC OnLine SC 4 which
had laid down that the provision is not mandatory but merely directory.
19. The above decision is binding on us. Yet, we must examine the
context in which the above judgment was rendered. The context
is important. Although the findings in the judgment are generally
worded, this Court in Manbodhan Lal Srivastava was not dealing
with Article 320(3)(a), as is the case before us, but was concerned
with Article 320(3)(c) i.e. a disciplinary matter in an individual case.
In Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, a government servant who was
posted as an officer-on-special-duty in the Education Department
from 1948 to 1951 was accused of giving favours to his friends
and relatives, while working in a Book Selection Committee, as he
had approved books written by his 14 year old nephew and other
publishers from whom he had taken certain money on interest. In
48
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
August 1952, he was suspended from service and a departmental
enquiry was conducted against him. On the recommendations of
the departmental enquiry report, the Government issued a show
cause notice under Article 311(2) of the Constitution and finally,
after hearing the concerned employee, the Government issued a
notification reducing his rank and compulsorily retiring him. These
were the facts of the case before this Court.
20. Article 320(3) speaks of a variety of matters where the Commission
is to be consulted- (a) Recruitment in Service and (c) disciplinary
matters, being two such instances. Whereas Article 320(3)(c) is
generally concerned with individual matters relating to disciplinary
proceedings, Article 320(3)(a) deals with policy issues where an entire
recruitment process is at stake. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, was
a case dealing with Article 320(3)(c), and not with Article 320(3)(a),
which is before us.
21. Another question in Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, was whether Article
311 of the Constitution of India is subject to Article 320(3)(c). Para
4 of the Judgment reads like this:
"Hence, the main question in controversy in Appeal No.
27 of 1955, is whether the High Court was right in taking
the view that Article 311 was subject to the provisions of
Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution, which were mandatory,
and as such, non-compliance with those provisions in the
instant case, was fatal to the proceedings ending with the
order passed by the Government on September 12, 1953."
22. The judgment also restricts itself to the facts relating to Article
320(3)(c). This is how it concludes :
"13. In view of these considerations, it must be held that
the provisions of Article 320(3)(c) are not mandatory and
that non-compliance with those provisions, does not afford
a cause of action to the respondent in a court of law. It is
not for this Court further to consider what other remedy,
if any, the respondent has. Appeal No. 27 is, therefore,
allowed and Appeal No. 28 dismissed. In view of the fact
that the appellant did not strictly comply with the terms of
Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution, we direct that each
party bear its own costs throughout."
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
49
Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.
23. Thus, it was in the background of the above facts that it was held
by this Court that consultation with the Commission to be directory
and not mandatory. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava also emphasized
the purpose of the proviso to Article 320(3) of the Constitution
which states that the Governor of a State is empowered to make
regulations specifying the matters in which it is not necessary for
the State to consult the Public Service Commission. This is what
was said by this Court:
"7...Perhaps, because of the use of the word "shall"
in several parts of Article 320, the High Court was led
to assume that the provisions of Article 320(3)(c) were
mandatory, but in our opinion, there are several cogent
reasons for holding to the contrary. In the first place,
the proviso to Article 320, itself, contemplates that the
President or the Governor, as the case may be, "may
make regulations specifying the matters in which either
generally, or in any particular class of case or in particular
circumstances, it shall not be necessary for a Public Service
Commission to be consulted". The words quoted above
give a clear indication of the intention of the Constitution
makers that they did envisage certain cases or classes of
cases in which the Commission need not be consulted. If
the provisions of Article 320 were of a mandatory character,
the Constitution would not have left it to the discretion of
the Head of the Executive Government to undo those
provisions by making regulations to the contrary. If it had
been intended by the makers of the Constitution that
consultation with the Commission should be mandatory, the
proviso would not have been there, or, at any rate, in the
terms in which it stands. That does not amount to saying
that it is open to the Executive Government, completely
to ignore the existence of the Commission or to pick and
choose cases in which it may or may not be consulted.
Once, relevant regulations have been made, they are
meant to be followed in letter and in spirit and it goes
without saying that consultation with the Commission on
all disciplinary matters affecting a public servant has been
specifically provided for, in order, first, to give an assurance
to the Services that a wholly independent body not directly
50
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
concerned with the making of orders adversely affecting
public servants, has considered the action proposed to
be taken against a particular public servant, with an open
mind; and secondly, to afford the Government unbiased
advice and opinion on matters vitally affecting the morale
of public services. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the
Executive Government, when it proposes to take any
disciplinary action against a public servant, to consult the
Commission as to whether the action proposed to be taken
was justified and was not in excess of the requirements
of the situation."
(Emphasis Provided)
Thus, even if, for arguments sake, consultation with Commission is
held to be directory then also there is no doubt that once Regulations
are framed these are to be followed, "in letter and spirit".
24. In other words, this Court in Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, had
recognised the importance of Regulations framed under the proviso
to Article 320(3) of the Constitution and had cautioned against the
casual bypassing of the Regulations. In the case at hand, Regulations
as contemplated under the Proviso were already in existence in
Punjab known as Punjab Public Service Commission (Limitation
of Functions) Regulations, 1955. For our purposes, it is relevant
to note that with these Regulations the State had taken out certain
posts outside the purview of the Commission. Admittedly, the posts
of Assistant Professors and Librarians in Degree Colleges were not
amongst them. In other words, these posts were within the purview
of the Commission. Thus, selection of these posts was within the
purview of the State Commission, and it was mandatory that it ought
to be consulted.
25. The respondents have tried to meet this deficiency by stating
that the State had amended the 1955 Regulations in March 2022
(by retrospective effect), by mentioning these posts in the 1955
Regulations and these posts were then taken out from the purview
of Commission. All the same, we are unable to accept this argument
inasmuch as the amendment was made after concluding the entire
recruitment process and giving appointment letters to the selected
candidates. It was hence a post facto exercise. The Government
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
51
Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.
had already made its selections on the posts which could only have
been done by the Commission under Article 320 of the Constitution
of India.
26. This apart, the 1955 Regulations prescribed a procedure under which
posts within the purview of the Commission could be withdrawn. Part
III-B and Part III-C of the 'Regulations and Instructions Governing
the Work of the Punjab Public Service Commission' provide a
procedure for the exclusion of posts/services from the purview of
the Commission. Regulation 20 reads as under:
"20. For exclusion of posts/services and other matters from
the purview of the Punjab Public Service Commission, the
following procedure is to be followed:
(i) Individual proposals for taking out posts from the
purview of the Commission would be processed by
the Administrative Departments concerned. After the
Department had taken a tentative decision to take out
certain posts from the purview of the Commission, the
Department would obtain the views/comments of the Public
Service Commission by making a self-contained reference
to the Commission.
(ii) On receipt of the comments/views of the Commission,
the matter would further be examined by the Department
concerned keeping in view the comments/views so
received and the advice of the Department of Personnel
and Administrative Reforms.