Statutory recruitment rules prevail over internal procedure, and excessive viva voce weight in selection was held arbitrary.

A constitutional commission may regulate its own procedure only where that procedure remains consistent with mandatory statutory recruitment rules; a process that overrides those rules is invalid. The selection under the recruitment rules was found inconsistent because it ignored required criteria such as academic qualification, teaching and research experience, while giving excessive weight to viva voce, which was held unreasonable and arbitrary. The higher-qualification language was confined to the relevant super-specialty post, not an unrelated specialty. The appellant was directed to receive proper placement in the select list with consequential seniority and monetary benefits, without disturbing completed appointments beyond what time and equity required.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Public Service Commission had competence to frame its business and procedure rules and whether such procedure could operate consistently with the statutory recruitment rules; (ii) whether the selection process under Rule 51 ignored the mandatory criteria in Rule 8 and whether the allocation of 100 marks for viva voce was excessive and arbitrary; (iii) whether the expression relating to higher qualification in Rule 51(b) meant qualification in the same super-specialty post and what relief should follow for the appellant.

Issue (i): Whether the Public Service Commission had competence to frame its business and procedure rules and whether such procedure could operate consistently with the statutory recruitment rules.

Analysis: The service recruitment rules were held to be statutory in nature. The Commission, as a constitutional body, may regulate its own procedure for limited administrative purposes, including short-listing, but any such procedure must remain in conformity with the governing statutory rules. A procedure that overrides or makes ineffective the statutory recruitment scheme cannot be sustained.

Conclusion: The Commission could frame procedural rules only to the extent they were consistent with the statutory recruitment rules.

Issue (ii): Whether the selection process under Rule 51 ignored the mandatory criteria in Rule 8 and whether the allocation of 100 marks for viva voce was excessive and arbitrary.

Analysis: Rule 8 required consideration of academic qualifications, teaching experience, research experience, and previous record of work. Rule 51 introduced a marking scheme that gave disproportionate weight to viva voce, and also took into account factors not envisaged by the statutory rules. The selection was found to have been made in breach of the statutory method, and the viva voce allocation was held to be unreasonable and liable to be recast.

Conclusion: The selection process was inconsistent with the statutory recruitment rules, and the viva voce component of Rule 51 was excessive.

Issue (iii): Whether the expression relating to higher qualification in Rule 51(b) meant qualification in the same super-specialty post and what relief should follow for the appellant.

Analysis: The higher qualification contemplated by the rule was construed in the context of the post for which recruitment was made, namely the relevant department of super-specialty and not any unrelated specialty. As to relief, the appellant had been denied full consequential benefits despite the earlier directions, but long lapse of time and the settled position of selected candidates weighed against unsettling the entire selection.

Conclusion: The expression was confined to the relevant super-specialty post, and the appellant was entitled to placement in the select list above the identified respondents with full consequential benefits.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of by directing the State to give the appellant the benefit of proper placement in the select list along with monetary and seniority benefits, while leaving the appointments already made undisturbed to the extent necessary in view of the passage of time.

Ratio Decidendi: A constitutional body may regulate its own procedure only so far as that procedure does not override or dilute mandatory statutory recruitment rules, and any viva voce allocation in a selection process must remain reasonable and non-arbitrary.

---