UPSC & state PSCs

The constitutional charter: Articles 315-323

The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the State Public Service Commissions (SPSCs) are constitutional bodies created by Part XIV of the Constitution, Articles 315 to 323. Article 315(1) mandates one Public Service Commission for the Union and one for each State; Article 315(2) permits two or more States to share a Joint State Public Service Commission (JSPSC) by resolution of their legislatures, with Parliament providing by law for its establishment — the present case being the Joint Cadre arrangements and historically the Andhra-Telangana transitional services.

The UPSC traces its lineage to the first Public Service Commission established on 1 October 1926 under the Government of India Act 1919 (following the Lee Commission, 1924), reconstituted as the Federal Public Service Commission under the Government of India Act 1935, and renamed the Union Public Service Commission when the Constitution commenced on 26 January 1950.

Composition and tenure

Article 316 vests the appointment of the UPSC Chairman and members in the President, and of a State Commission in the Governor. The Constitution fixes no number; by convention the UPSC comprises a Chairman and around nine to eleven members. Article 316(2) prescribes the tenure: a member holds office for six years or until age 65 (UPSC) or 62 (State and Joint Commissions), whichever is earlier. At least one-half of the members of every Commission must be persons who have held office under the Government of India or a State for at least ten years (Article 316(1) proviso), securing administrative experience.

Article 318 empowers the President (for UPSC) or Governor (for SPSC) to regulate, by rules, the number of members and conditions of service — but Article 318 proviso bars any variation of conditions to a member's disadvantage after appointment, a structural independence safeguard mirroring those for judges and the CAG.

Removal — the insulation against the executive

Article 317 makes the removal procedure deliberately rigid. A Chairman or member can be removed by the President alone (even for a State Commission member, not the Governor), and only on the ground of proved misbehaviour after a Supreme Court inquiry under Article 145, or on grounds of insolvency, paid employment outside the duties of office, or infirmity of mind/body. Article 317(2) lets the President suspend a member pending the Supreme Court's report. This places removal beyond ordinary executive pleasure and beyond the State government entirely — the single most testable independence feature.

The Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) ruling held that a Commission member must withdraw from selection where a near relative is a candidate, and that the selection process must be free from bias. The leading authority on the binding force of recommendations is examined in the next block.

Functions under Article 320

Article 320 lists the UPSC's duties: to conduct examinations for appointment to the Union services, and to advise on (a) all methods of recruitment to civil services and posts, (b) principles governing appointments, promotions and transfers, (c) disciplinary matters affecting civil servants, (d) claims for reimbursement of legal costs incurred in defence of official acts, and (e) pension claims arising from injury in service. Article 321 allows Parliament or a State legislature to extend a Commission's functions by law.

Crucially, the UPSC's advice is purely advisory and not binding on the Government. In State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava (1957), the Supreme Court held that Article 320(3)(c) consultation is directory, not mandatory, and that failure to consult the Commission does not, by itself, void executive action — though departure from advice must be reported. Article 323 requires the UPSC to submit an annual report to the President (and the SPSC to the Governor), which is laid before Parliament/the legislature together with a memorandum explaining cases where the Commission's advice was not accepted — the accountability hook examiners love.

Article 322 charges the Consolidated Fund of India (or the State) with the Commission's expenses, including salaries and pensions — a fiscal independence guarantee that, like the CAG and judiciary, removes annual parliamentary vote dependence.

Why this matters for the exam

This topic is a GS Paper 2 (Mains) staple under "Constitutional bodies — powers, functions and responsibilities" and a recurring Prelims factual area. The Prelims trap is the non-binding advisory character: candidates wrongly assume UPSC selections or disciplinary advice bind the government — Manbodhan Lal (1957) settles otherwise. A second high-yield distinction is the removal asymmetry: a State PSC member is removable only by the President, not the Governor, on a Supreme Court report — a frequent PYQ MCQ. Third, retain the age limits (65 UPSC / 62 SPSC) and the post-tenure debarment of Article 319: a UPSC Chairman is ineligible for any further Government employment, while a UPSC member may become UPSC Chairman or a State Commission Chairman but not return as an ordinary member — a clause designed to prevent quid-pro-quo.

Mains answers must cite Article numbers verbatim, name Manbodhan Lal (1957) and Ashok Kumar Yadav (1985), and contrast the UPSC's structural independence with its functional weakness (advisory, no role in promotions in many States, growing reliance on staff selection bodies). PYQs (2017, 2019) have probed the difference between constitutional and statutory bodies and the limits of UPSC's jurisdiction — note Article 320(4)/(5) exclusions for reservation matters and certain temporary appointments.