Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Referring to Article 320 of the Constitution of India, Civil Writ Petition No.5084 of 2013 (O&M) :{ 7 }:

highlighting therein the functions of the H.P.S.C., learned Senior counsel for the petitioner asserts that it has been assigned the basic function of conducting examinations for appointments to the services of the States. No provision under the Constitution abrogates the absolute power vested in this regard in the State Public Service Commission. Intention of the framers of the Constitution is clear and apparent that the State Government is not empowered to bypass the Commission at its sweet will and to make selection to the services under the State through its own agencies. Chapter II of Part XIV of the Constitution would just be rendered redundant and the use of the word `shall' in various clauses makes it absolutely clear that the makers of the Constitution had never intended to create any exception so far as the duty of the Public Service Commission to conduct examinations for appointment to the services is concerned. Referring to Article 321, he submits that the Constitution rather provides for extension of the functions of the Commission for making recruitments to the services of any legal authority or other body corporate constituted by law or any public institution. The basic structure of the Constitution of India by abrogating and diluting the powers and functions of a Constitutional body i.e. the Public Service Commission stands violated, especially when the Haryana Government has entrusted the selection to more than 90% of the posts and services under the State to various Government agencies having the effect of nullifying Chapter II Part XIV of the Constitution.

Referring to various provisions of the impugned 2011 Act, the learned Senior counsel has submitted that it is not an independent body as the appointment to the Board is solely at the discretion of respondent No.5 and, therefore, would be under his influence while performing its duties and functions. The 2011 Act, being violative of the basic structure of the Constitution, especially having the effect of abrogation of Chapter II Part XIV of the Constitution and putting it as a substitute to the Commission, when the same has been enacted with the precise tailor-made qualifications and purpose to accommodate a particular person, Civil Writ Petition No.5084 of 2013 (O&M) :{ 9 }:

Learned Advocate General, Haryana, has referred to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Manbodan Lal Srivastava, AIR 1957 SC 912 to contend that Article 320 of the Constitution of India is not mandatory and rather is directory. Therefore, he contends that by taking out of the purview of the HPSC., the posts and the services of the Haryana Education Department specified in the 2011 Act does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution as the Constitution itself under proviso to clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution of India carves an exception.