Public Service Commission selection rules: collateral attacks, bias safeguards, and limits on viva voce weight in recruitment

A selection by a constitutionally appointed Public Service Commission cannot be invalidated through collateral allegations about the integrity, calibre or political or caste connections of its members when the appointments themselves are not directly challenged and there is no supporting evidence. The rule against bias requires a member to abstain from interviewing or discussing a relative-candidate, but not to the entire selection process; where the member fully withdraws for that candidate and does not participate in deliberation, bias is not established. In composite recruitment, calling an excessively large number of candidates and giving disproportionate weight to viva voce can create arbitrariness, so interview marks and interview size must remain within reasonable limits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the validity of selections could be struck down on the basis of allegations that members of the Public Service Commission lacked integrity, calibre or qualification and had been appointed on political or caste considerations; (ii) whether the participation of members whose close relatives were candidates vitiated the selection on the ground of reasonable likelihood of bias; and (iii) whether calling a very large number of eligible candidates for interview and allocating an excessive proportion of marks to the viva voce test rendered the selection arbitrary.

Issue (i): Whether the validity of selections could be struck down on the basis of allegations that members of the Public Service Commission lacked integrity, calibre or qualification and had been appointed on political or caste considerations.

Analysis: The attack on the selections could not rest on a collateral inquiry into the personal worth of the Chairman and members of the Commission. Their appointments satisfied the constitutional requirements governing a State Public Service Commission, and their selections could not be invalidated merely because broad allegations were made about political proximity or caste links. The condemnatory findings of the High Court were unsupported by pleadings or evidence and could not be sustained, particularly when the validity of the appointments themselves had not been directly challenged.

Conclusion: The selections were not liable to be invalidated on this ground and the challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the participation of members whose close relatives were candidates vitiated the selection on the ground of reasonable likelihood of bias.

Analysis: The rule against bias requires that justice appear to be done, and a member with a close personal interest must not participate in the interview of the related candidate or in discussions concerning that candidate. That rule, however, did not require a member of a constitutional Public Service Commission to withdraw from the entire selection process. In the present case, the concerned members had abstained when their relatives were interviewed, took no part in any discussion concerning them, and there was nothing to show that the marks awarded to the relatives were disclosed to them. On those facts, the apprehension of bias was not established.

Conclusion: The selection was not vitiated by bias arising from the presence of the related members.

Issue (iii): Whether calling a very large number of eligible candidates for interview and allocating an excessive proportion of marks to the viva voce test rendered the selection arbitrary.

Analysis: Regulation 3 only prescribed the minimum qualification for entry to the viva voce stage and did not compel the Commission to call every eligible candidate. The Court held that, in a composite test, the number called for interview should ordinarily not exceed about twice, or at the highest thrice, the number of vacancies. It further held that the allocation of 33.3% marks for viva voce in the ex-servicemen category and 22.2% in the general category was excessive and introduced a wide scope for arbitrariness. Nevertheless, because the selections had been made under long-standing rules and had already operated for a substantial period, the Court declined to unsettle the appointments already made.

Conclusion: The viva voce arrangement was held excessive and the calling of candidates excessive, but the existing selections were not set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the High Court judgment was set aside, and the selections made by the Commission were upheld, while future selections were directed to follow revised limits on the viva voce marks and the number of candidates to be interviewed.

Ratio Decidendi: A selection made by a constitutionally appointed Public Service Commission cannot be invalidated on collateral attacks against the personal qualifications of its members, and bias is not established where a related member fully withdraws from the interview and deliberation concerning the relative; however, in composite written-and-interview recruitment, the interview stage must be kept within reasonable limits so that it does not become the decisive and arbitrary factor in selection.

---