ANOJ KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Constitution of India envisages recruitment to the Civil Services under the Union and the States on the basis of merit by open competition. Leonard White in his Introduction to the Study of Public Administration states- "Open competitive examinations are as peculiarly democratic institution. Any qualified person may come forward. His relative competence for appointment is determined by a neutral, disinterested body on the basis of objective evidence supplied by the candidate himself. No one has "pull"; every one stands on his own feet. The system is not only highly democratic, it is fair and equitable to every competition. The same rules govern, the same procedures apply, the same yardstick is used to test competence", (Quoted in Lila Dhar V/s. State of Rajasthan, 1981 AIR(SC) 1777). The body assigned with the job of selection of qualified persons in India is the Public Service Commission at the level of both the Union and the States.

(2.) The provisions as contained in Article 316 of the Constitution regarding appointment and term of office of members, Article 317 regarding removal and suspension of members, Article 318 regarding framing of Regulations as to conditions of service of the members and the staff, Article 319 regarding prohibition as to holding of the office by the members on ceasing to be the members not only confer a special status but also give a halo of respectability to the Commission.

(3.) Article 318 of the Constitution provides that number of members of the Commission shall be fixed by regulation by the President or the Government of the State, as the case may be. In Bihar, in terms of Regulation 3(1) of the Bihar Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1970, the numbers of members has been fixed at 10 besides the Chairman. As to how a multi-number body should function, I would do no better than to quote the following passage from S.S. Dhanoa V/s. Union of India, 1991 AIR(SC) 1745 at pages 1754-55: