STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
|Article 315 to 323 (Part XIV)|
|BASICS AND BACKGROUND|
- On the lines of UPSC in the centre, there is a State Public Service Commission (SPSC) for every state, which is an independent Constitutional body. It is basically the major recruiting agency of a state.
- Article 315 to 323 (Part XIV) deals with the composition, appointment and removal of members along with the independence, powers and functions of the SPSC.
- Government of India Act, 1919 proposed to set up Federal Public Service Commission.
- In 1926 on the recommendation of Lee Commission (1924), the Federal Public Service Commission was established.
- Government of India Act, 1935, provided for the Central and State Public Service Commission.
- Responsible for the recruitment of the State services and advises the government on promotion and disciplinary matters.
- Watchdog of merit system in the State.
- SPSC is only a central recruiting agency in the state while the Department of Personnel or the General Administration Department is the central personnel agency in the state.
- The composition of the State Public Service Commission is similar to that of the Union Public Service Commission.
- The SPSC consists of a Chairman and other members who are appointed by the Governor of a state.
- The Governor of a state enjoys discretionary power to determine the composition and conditions of service of the chairman and other members of SPSC.
- According to the Constitution of India, 50% of the members of SPSC should be those who have held government office (Government of India/State Government) for at least 10 years. It mentions no other qualification.
- All the members including the Chairman hold office for a six years term, or until they attain the age of 62 years, whichever is earlier.
- All the members including the Chairman can resign from their offices at any time by addressing their resignation to the Governor.
- The Governor can temporarily appoint one of the members of the SPSC as an acting chairman if:
- The office of the chairman of the commission becomes vacant; or
- The chairman of the commission is unable to perform the duties of his office due to absence or for any other reason
- Although the Chairman and members of a SPSC are appointed by the Governor, they can be removed only by the President if –
- He has gone insolvent or bankrupt.
- He engages in any paid involvement during his tenure.
- He found it unfit to continue in office by reason of infirmity of mind or body.
- The President can also remove the Chairman or any other member of SPSC for misbehaviour,
- However it is subject to judicial inquiry under the supervision of the Supreme Court.
- Under the provisions of the Constitution, the advice tendered by the Supreme Court in this regard is binding on the president.
- Security of Tenure – The chairman and other members of SPSC can only be removed on the basis of grounds mentioned in the constitution only.
- The conditions of service of the Chairman and the members cannot be changed to their disadvantage after the appointment.
- No requirement of vote of State Legislature to meet the expenses of SPSC as all the expenses are charged on Consolidated funds of the State.
- Chairman cannot be re-employed in the Government, not even on the same post.
- The members can be re-appointed to UPSC or any State PSC though, but not any other employment.
- It conducts examinations for appointment to the Services of State.
- It is consulted on the matters below:
- All matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts.
- 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 transfer.
- All disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government of State in a civil capacity, including memorials or petitions relating to such matters.
- Any claim of costs incurred by a civil servant in defending legal proceedings instituted against him in respect of acts done or purporting to be done in the execution of his official duty.
- Any claim for the award of a pension in respect of injuries sustained by a person while serving under the Government of India and any question as to the amount of any such award.
- Any matter related to personnel management.
- It presents, annually, a report on its performance to the Governor of a State. The Governor then places this report before both the State Legislature, along with a memorandum which explains the non-acceptance of Commission’s advice.
- The role of SPSC is limited and recommendations made by it are only advisory in nature, hence, not binding upon the government.
- It is up to the state government to accept or reject that advice. The only safeguard is the answerability of the government to the state legislature for departing from the recommendation of the Commission.
- The SPSC is consulted by the governor along with the State High Court, while framing rules for the appointment to judicial service of the state other than the posts of district judges.
The difference between removal and dismissal is that the former does not disqualify for future employment under the government while the latter disqualifies for future employment under the government.
|SPSC AND STATE VIGILANCE COMMISSION|
- Since the inception of SVC, the role of SPSC in disciplinary matters has been affected. Both are consulted by the government while taking
- disciplinary action against a civil servant.
- SPSC being an independent body has an edge over SVC.
- To avoid possibilities of the difference of opinion between SPSC and SVC any one will be consulted.
- While making reservations of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens.
- While taking into consideration the claims of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in making appointments to services and posts.
The Governor can exclude posts, services and matters from the purview of the SPSC.
The Supreme Court has held that if the government fails to consult UPSC in the matters, the aggrieved public servant has no remedy in a court. The court held that any irregularity in consultation with the UPSC or acting without consultation does not invalidate the decision of the government.