STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.versusMANJIT SINGH AND ORS.

A                      STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
                                   v.
                         MANJIT SINGH AND ORS.

                             SEPTEMBER 16, 2003

B               [BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.]

          Constitution of India-Article 320-Public Service Cimmissions-
    Powers of-Recruitment on reserved posts-Interview ofcandidates having
    certain educational qualifications being the method prescribed by
C   Government-Commission prescribing an additional screening test with
    minimum qualifying marks for ensuring efficiency in public administration-
    Held, not permissible-Commission must conform to the provisions oflaw,
    rules and regulations and take into account the policy decisions of the
    Government-No extra qualification can be imposed by the Commission
D   if the Government does not prescribe any special qualification in case of
    reserved posts-Articles 16(4) and 335.

          Service Law-Recruitment-Government providing for recruitment
    on the basis of interview of candidates having certain educational
    qualifications-Public Service Commission adding a screening test and
E   also providing for minimum qualifying marks for short listing app/icants-
    Held, fixation ofminimum qualifying marks may defeat the purpose ofshort
    listing-Fixation ofminimum qualifying marks for short listing not desirable
    nor required.

F         The Punjab Public Service Commission issued an advertisement
    for recruitment of medical officers. The mode of selection prescribed
    by the State Government was only interview of eligible candidates on
    the basis of their educational qualifications. The policy of the
    Government was that candidates belonging to reserved categories
G   possessing minimum qualification/experience should not be put to any
    test to cheek their suitability for appointment.

         Out of the 500 vacancies advertised, 62 seats were reserved for
    Balmikis and Majhbi Sikhs and 63 seats were reserved for Scheduled
    Casts (General) candidates. 303 Scheduled Castes (General) candidates
H   and 27 Balmikis and Majhbi Sikhs applied pursuant to the
                                     856
                      STAJ'E v. MANJIT SINGH                         857

advertisement After receiving the applications, the Commission notified A
that it would hold a screening test for all categories of candidates and
only those who qualify the screening test would be called for interview.
The Commission fixed 40% marks in the screening test as the minimum
qualifying marks for candidates in the reserved category. As a result
of the screening test only 59 Scheduled Castes (General) candidates B
and 4 Balmikis and Majhbi Sikhs could qualify for the interview.

     The aggrieved candidates challenged the method adopted by the
Commission. The High Court struck down the methodology adopted
by the Commission in holding the screening test and prescribing the
minimum qualifying marks as unreasonable and arbitrary.             C
     The Commission and the State Government filed appeals before
this Court. The Commission contended that it was a constitutional and
independent authority and was duty bound to make endeavour to
secure efficiency in public administration. While doing so the D
Commission would not be subservient to the direction of the State
Government unless permissible under the law.

     Dismissing the appeals, the Court

      HELD : 1.1. The Public Service Commission derives its powers E
under Article 320 of the Constitution of India as well as its limits too.
Independent and fair working of the Public Service Commission is of
utmost importance. It is also not supposed to function under any pressure
ofthe Government. Bu tat the same time it has to conform to the provisions
of the law and has to abide by the rules and regulations on the subject and F
to take into account the policy decisions which are within the domain of
the State Government. It cannot impose its own policy decision in a
matter beyond its purview. [870-E-F)

      Dr. Sadhna Devi & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1997) 3 sec 90, G
distinguished.

     1.2. It would ·be a matter of policy to be decided by the State
Government as to what measures, if necessary, may be provided
regarding reservations vis-a-vis maintenance of efficiency in services.
Where no special qualification or any prescribed standard of efficiency H
    858                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A over and above the eligibility criteria is provided by the Rules or the
    State, it would not be for the Public Service Commission to impose any
    extra qualification/standard supposedly for maintaining minimum
    efficiency which it thinks, may be necessary. No consultation with the
    Public Service Commission, in such matters, is envisaged in view of
B   clause (4) of Article 320 of the Constitution of India. [869-E-F)

       2.1. There can be no doubt about the powers and functions of the
  Public Service Commission in short listing of candidates. If a large
  number of candidates apply for recruitment to a small number of
  posts, it would obviously not be possible to take full test/examination
C and interview of such large number of applicants, though eligible. In
  that event those candidates, in respect of whom it would serve no
  purpose to call them for further test, may be excluded by adopting the
  method of screening test. (865-D]

D        2.2. For the purpose of short listing it would not at all be necessary
    to provide cut-off marks. Any number of given candidates could be
    taken out from the top of the list up to the number of the candidates
    required in order of merit. Generally speaking calling 3-5 candidates
    for interview for one post is normally accepted depending upon the
E   number of seats. Therefore, for 100 posts the selecting body may in
    order of merit take about first 500 candidates for further tests/
    interview. If that is so any candidate who is otherwise eligible up to
    the 500th position whatever be the percentage of marks obtained by
    him would be eligible to be called for further tests. The rest of the
    candidates would be screened out. Thus the purpose of short listing
F   would be achieved without prescribing any minimum cut-off marks.
    No candidate excluded by adopting such a method for short listing can
    raise any grievance whatsoever. (865-F, 865-E-F)

        2.3. In case cut-off marks is fixed in the name of short listing of
G the candidates and the number of candidates obtaining such minimum
  marks, is less than the number of vacancies, in that event screening test
  itself will amount to a selection by excluding those who though possess
  the prescribed quantification and are eligible for consideration but
  they would be out of the field of consideration by reason of not crossing
H the cut-off marks as may be fixed by the recruiting body. If in another
          STATE v. MANJIT SINGH [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.]                   859

situation many more than the required number of candidates obtain A
marks above the cut-off marks, all of them may have to be called for
further tests and interview etc. It would in that event not serve the
purpose of short listing by this method to obtain the given ratio of
candidates. [865-G-H, 866-A]
                                                                            B
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2305-06
of 1999.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 30.6.98 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 19008 and 19123 of 1997.
                                                                            c
                                  WITH

     C.A. Nos. 5461/99, 809, 961, 51/2000 and 5165 of 2001.

     H.S. Munjral, Ms. Kanwaljit Kochar and R.S. Suri for the Appellants. D

    Nidhesh Gupta, Naveen Singh, Ms. S. Minakshi Vij, Dr. K.S.
Chauhan, Chand Kiran, A.P. Natarajan, Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Ms. Indra
Sawheny, Mrs. Rekha Palli and Debasis Misra for the Respondents.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                            E

       BRIJESH KUMAR, J. : The above noted appeals involve a common
question of law, hence they have been heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment. There may be some minor
differences here and there on facts but without effecting the main question F
involved, hence for the purposes of dealing with the matter, we refer to
the facts in Civil Appeal Nos. 2305-06/1999. The main question for our
consideration in these appeals is as to whether it was competent for the
Punjab Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission') to resort
to screening test with a view to shortlist the number of candidates to bring G
it to the ratio of three to five candidates per vacancy and further, whether
keeping in view the efficiency required for the services in respect of which
selection and appointments was to be made, could a written test be held
to fix some minimum cut off marks, where process of selection was by
interview of eligible candidates belonging to reserve category.              H
    860                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A       The High Court, in the judgments impugned in the above noted
  appeals, held that the action of the Commission in holding the screening
  test and prescribing the minimum qualifying marks was unreasonable,
  arbitrary and discriminatory. Hence, gave a direction that the Commission
  would interview the petitioners if not already interviewed and declare the
B result of the selection as per their merit within the time specified. The
  Commission has preferred the above noted appeals along with the State of
  Punjab as one of the appellants. The main thrust of the learned counsel
  appearing on behalf of the Commission is that the commission is a
  constitutional and independent authority and it is its duty to make an
  endeavour to secure efficiency in the public administration by selecting the
C suitable candidates for the public services. While discharging such a duty,
  it is submitted that it would not be subservient to the direction of the
  government unless permissible under the law. Thus, to the extent indicated
  above, there may be some conflict in the stand between the State
  Government and the Commission. But both are impleaded as appellants,
D the lead was taken by the learned counsel appearing for the Commission,
  who virtually, alone made his submissions.

        The brief facts of the case are that an advertisement No. 4 of 1997
  was issued by the Commission for recruitment of 500 Medical Officers in
  P.C.M.S. (Class-I). In all 303 Scheduled Castes (General) (for short S.C.)
E candidates applied. The candidates belonging to other Reserved categories
  like S.C. (Balmikis and Majhbi Sikhs) also applied. The Commission
  scrutinized the applications and notified to hold a screening test on
  28.9.1997 for all categories of candidates. So far S.C. candidates are
  concerned, out of 303 applications, 279 appeared as S.C. (General)
F candidates out of which 59 could clear the test. To complete the details
  of the break-up of the number of seats and reservation etc. it may be
  indicated that out of 500 vacancies, 125 were reserved for S.C. candidates
  50 per cent of which, namely 62 posts for Balmikis and Majhbi Sikhs and
  the remaining for the general category ofS.C.s. Only 27 persons belonging
G to Balmikis and Majhbi Sikhs applied out of which only four could clear
  the test. The Commission fixed 45% cut-off marks for general category
  candidates and 40% ~ut off mark~ for S.C. candidates for their consideration
  for the selection. The prescribed mode of selection was only interview of
  eligible candidates on the basis of their educational qualifications.

H         That State Government has issued instructions vide letters dated
            STATE v. MANJIT SINGH [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.]                   861
 14.5.1969 and 5.5.1970, indicating the circumstances in which it would be A
appropriate to hold a test viz. where the number of candidates in the
reserved category is more than the number of seats available, a competitive
test could be held but no test is to be held where the number of candidates
available may be equal or less than the number of the seats. The letters
dated 14th May, 1969 and 5th May, 1970 issued by the Punjab Government B
are quoted below :

     "No. 3925/6:S:W:/9778          ANN.P-7

     From
                                                                              c
                 The Secretary, Govt. of Punjab,
                 Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes
                 Department

     To
                                                                              D
               All heads of departments, Commissioners of Divisions,
          Deputy Commissioners, registrar, Punjab & Haryana High Court,
          District and Sessions Judges and Sub-Divisional Officers (Civil)
          in the State.
                                                                              E
          Dated Chandigarh 14 May, 1969.

          Sub: Reservation for members of Scheduled Castes and Backward
               classes in the Punjab State Government Services.
                                                                              F
          Sir,

                I am directed to address you on the above mentioned subject
          and to say that sometimes written examination is held for
          candidates of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes at the time
          of recruitment in addition to the minimum prescribed qualifications, G
          as a result the qualifications of the scheduled caste and backward
          classes candidates against reserved posts become higher and the
          candidates belonging to scheduled castes and backward classes
          who possess minimum prescribed qualifications for the post/posts
          are not appointed.                                                   H
    862                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A           2. The government, after considering this matter, has decided that
            scheduled castes/backward classes candidates who possess
            minimum prescribed qualifications should not be put to any such
            test that may deprive them of the posts reserved for them. In case
            appointing authority/recruiting institution consider it necessary
            can hold some other test among the scheduled castes candidates
B
            in order to test the level of their ability. But the posts reserved
            for them should be given to them according to their qualification.
            The meaning of these instructions is that the reserved posts be
            offered to scheduled castes/backward classes candidates who
            fulfill the minimum prescribed qualifications so that they can get
c           their due right in the state services.

                 The receipt of this letter may be sent.

                                                           Yours faithfully,
                                                                       Sd/-
D                                                   Secretary, Govt. Punjab
                                    Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes
                                                               Department."

                                                                    "ANN.P-8
E
          From

            The Secretary, Govt. of Punjab,
            Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes
            Department
F
            To

                 The Sec. Punjab Service Commission,
                 Patiala.
G                Memo No. 1622 V.K.A. (W)-2-69/11246
                 Dated Chandigarh 5th May, 1970.

            Sub: Reservation for persons belonging to Scheduled Castes
                 and Backward classes in the Punjab State Government
H                Services.
         STATE v. MANJIT SINGH [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.]                     863

            Yours attention is drawn to your letter No. 198/69.C.A.G. A
       dated the 22nd December, 1969 on the subject cited above.

       2. In this connection, it is also clarified that the Directions issued
       vide Pb. govt. letter No. 3925-6-S.W.-69/9778, dated 14.5.1969,
       are applicable on the recruitments made through interview or B
       other sources except the recruitments made through the competitive
       examinations. For the posts, which are to be filled in through the
       competitive examinations, the candidates belonging to the
       Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes who will acquire the
       minimum prescribed standard of merit will be considered against C
       the reserved posts and the completion of their suitability will be
       held amongst themselves.

        3. So far as the question of filling up the vacancies by way of
        interview or some other source is concerned, the directions
        mentioned in the aforesaid letter of the Punjab government are D
        quite clear., meaning thereby the candidates belonging to scheduled
        caste/Backward Classes possessing minimum qualification or
        experience should not be put to any test to check their suitability
        for appointment against reserved post. However, the Scheduled
        Castes candidates can be put to test among themselves to ascertain E
        the merit.

        4. It is also pointed out that if the eligible candidates belonging
        to these castes and classes outnumber the posts reserved for them,
        in such cases the deserving candidates having higher qualifications   F
        from amongst those candidates be recommended according to the
        number of reserved posts.



                                                                  Sd/-
                                                  Secretary, Pb. Govt. G
                                Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes
                                                  Welfare Department."

      The Resolution of the Public Service Commission upon which main
thrust has been provided, reads as follows :                          H
    864                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A           "21.10.91

            A meeting of the Commission was held today, the 21st October,
            1991, at 12.30 P.M. to discuss the criteria for screening the
            candidates for various posts advertised from time to time.

B           The Commission decided to take screening test for various posts
            in order to shortlist the candidates. It has also been decided that
            the number of candidates to be called for interviews shall be
            limited to 3-5 times the number of vacancies notified by the
            government category-wise.
c
            But in order to ensure minimum norms ofefficiency and standards
            in public administration, the Commission examined the matter in
            depth and decided that in future, no candidate belonging to the
            general category, shall be called for interview unless he obtains
            45% marks in the screening test and in the case of Scheduled
D
            Caste/Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes no candidate shall
            be called for interview unless he obtains 40% marks, in the said
            test.


E                                                                     Sd/-
                                            Chairman, Members & Secretary
                                                              21.10.1991"
                                                       (Emphasis supplied)

F The other resolution on which emphasis has been laid and which is also
    reflected in the tenor of the arguments of the learned counsel for the
    Commission, reads as under :

            "15.4.97

G           The Commission placed on record that it is a constitutional and
            independent authority and plays a pivotal role in selections and
            appointments of persons to public service. It endeavours to secure
            efficiency in public administration by selecting suitable persons
            for appointment of public service. It has to perform its duty in an
H           independent and objective manner without any influence or
          STATE v. MANJIT SINGH [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.]                      865

         direction of any other authority. It is not subservient to the A
         directions of the Government unless such directions are permissible
         by law. The Commission is fully competent and duty bound to
         hold competitive examinations and conduct interviews for selecting
         suitable candidates as per the criteria fixed by it as long as it does
         not militate against the law."                                         B
      The High Court, in the impugned judgment, referring to another
decision of a Division Bench on the same point in Dr. L9vekesh Kumar
& 4 others, and taking into account the facts of the case in hand, came to
the conclusion that the decision of the Commission to hold a screening test
was discriminatory and arbitrary.                                           C
      Now adverting to the point under consideration, it may be observed
that so far the powers and functions of the Commission in shortlisting of
candidates is concerned, there can certainly be no doubt about it. Say for
example I 0,000 candidates apply for recruitment to I 00 posts, it would D
obviously not be possible to take full test/examination and interview of
such large number of applicants, though eligible. In that event shortlisting
of the candidates by screening out those, in respect of whom it would serve
no purpose to call them for further test, may be excluded by adopting the
method of screening test. Generally speaking a ratio of 3-5 candidates for E
one post is normally accepted depending upon the number of seats.
Therefore, for I 00 posts the selecting body may in order of merit take out
about first 500 candidates for further tests/interview. The rest of the
candidates would be screened out. No candidate excluded by adopting such
a method for shortlisting can raise any grievance whatsoever.
                                                                               F
      But for such shortlisting as indicated above, it is not necessary to fix
any minimum qualifying marks. Any candidate on the top of the list at
number I down upto 500 would obviously constitute the shortlisted zone
of consideration for selection. For the purpose of elaboration it may be
observed that in case some cut-off marks is fixed in the name of shortlisting G
of the candidates and the number of candidates obtaining such minimum
marks, suppose is less than I 00 in that event screening test itself will
amount to a selection by excluding those who though possess the prescribed
qualification and are eligible for consideration but they would be out of
the field of consideration by reason of not crossing the cut-off marks as H
    866                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A may be fixed by the recruiting body. This would not be a case of
    shortlisting. In shortlisting, as observed above, any number of candidates
    required in certain proportion of the number of vacancies, they may be
    shortlisted in order of merit from serial no. 1 upto the number of candidates
    required.
B         In the present case, the stand of the appellant Commission is that for
    medical services where the members of service have to deal with the health
    and life of the people, they must have some minimum standard of
    efficiency and it is the bounden duty of the Commission to ensure the same.
    It is perhaps with this view in mind that the Commission fixed 45%
C   minimum qualifying cut-off marks for general category candidates and
    40% cut-off marks for Scheduled Caste candidates. We feel, here lies the
    fallacy in the whole reasoning of the Commission. It is no doubt true that
    the Commission is an independent and autonomous body and has to work
    without influence of any authority or the government. It is rather under
D   duty to act independently. But at the same time the fact cannot be lost sight
    of that the State Government is competent to lay down the qualifications
    for differernt posts, and frame rules for the purpose or take policy decisions
    which may of course not be against the law. In this context, we may refer
    to the provisions contained under Article 320 of the Constitution. It reads
E   as under:

             "Article 320. - Functions of Public Service Commissions-

             I.   It shall be the duty of the Union and the State public Service
                  Commissions to conduct examinations for appointments to
F                 the services of the Union and the services of the State
                  respectively.

             2.    It shall also be the duty of the Union Public Service
                  Commission, if requeste~ by any two or more States to do,
                  to assist those States in framing and operating schemes of
G                 joint recruitment for any services for which candidates
                  possessing special qualifications are required.

             3.    The Union Public Service Commission or the State
                   Public Service Commission, as the case may be, shall be
H                  consulted -
 STATE v. MANJIT SINGH [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.]                    867
    (a)    on all matters relating to methods ofrecruitment to civil A
           services and for civil posts;

    (b)    on 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 B
           suitability of candidates for such appointments,
           promotions or transfers;

    (c)    on all disciplinary matters, affecting a person serving
           under the Government of India or the Government of
           a State in a civil capacity, including memorials or C
           petitions relating to such matters;

     (d) on any claim by or in respect of a person who is serving
         or has served under the Government of India or the
         Government of a State or under the Crown in India or D
         under the Government of Indian State, in a civil
         capacity, that any costs incurred by him in defending
         legal proceedings instituted against him in respect of
         acts done or purporting to be done in the execution of
         his duty should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund
         oflndia, or, as the case may be, out of the Consolidated E
         Fund of the State.

     (e)   on any claim for the award of a pension in respect of
           injuries sustained by a person while serving under the
           Govt. of India or the Government of a State or under F
           the Crown in India or under the Government of an
           Indian State, in a civil capacity, and any question as to
           the amount of any such award,

and it shall be the duty of a Public Service Commission to advise G
on any matter so referred to them and on any other matter which
the President, or, as the case may be, the Governor of the State
may refer to them.

Provided that the President as respects the all-India services and
also as respects other services and p,osts in connection with the H
    868                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A           affairs of the Union and the Governor as respects other services
            and posts in connection with the affairs of a State, may make
            regulations specifying the matters in which either generally or in
            any particular class of case or in any particular circumstances, it
            shall not be necessary for a Public Service Commission to be
            consulted.
B
            4.    Nothing in clause (3) shall require a Public Service
                  Commission to be consulted as respects the manner in which
                  any provision referred to in clause (4) of article 16 may be
                  made or as respects the manner in which effect may be given
C                 to the provisions of article 335.

             5.   All regulations made under the proviso to clause (3) by the
                  President or the Governor of a State shall be laid for not less
                  than fourteen days before each House of Parliament or the
                  House or each House of the Legislature of the State, as the
D
                  case may be, as soon as possible after they are made and
                  shall be subject to such modifications, whether by way of
                  repeal or amendment, as both Houses of Parliament or the
                  House or both Houses of Legislature of the State may make
                  during the session in which they are so laid."
E
  It is to be noted that under clause (3), the Union Public Service Commission
  or the State Public Service Commission, has to be consulted by the
  Government relating to methods of recruitment in civil services and for
  civil posts, promotions and transfers as well as about suitability of
F candidates etc. The consultation may also be in regard to disciplinary
  matters affecting a person serving under the Government. We then find that
  clause (4) particularly provides that nothing in clause (3) shall require
  consultation of the Commission in respect to the manner in which any
  provision referred to in Article 16(4) may be made or the manner in which
G the effect may be given to the provisions of Article 335. We may peruse
  clause (4) of Article 16 and Article 335. They read as follows :

             "Article 16(4)-Nothing in the article shall prevent the State from
             making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts
             in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion      ·,
H            of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under
                STA TE v. MANJIT SINGH [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.]                  869

              the State.                                                          A
              Article 335.-Claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
              Tribes to services and posts-The claims of the members of
              the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken
              into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of B
              efficiency of administration in the making of appointments to
              services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or
              of a State.

                   Provided that nothing in this article shall prevent in making
              of any provision in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes C
              and the Scheduled Tribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in any
              examination or lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation
              in matters of promotion to any class or classes of services or posts
_J
              in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State."
                                                                                  D
     Article 16(4) deals with Reservations and Article 335 pertains to
     consideration of reservation consistent with maintenance of efficiency of
     the administration. As indicated earlier, clause (4) of Article 320 clearly
     provides that consultation of the Commission would not be necessary in
     the matters relating to Articles 16(4) and 335. Therefore, it would be a E
     matter of policy to be decided by the State Government as to what
     measures, if necessary, may be provided regarding reservations vis-a-vis
     maintenance of efficiency in services. Where no special qualification or
     any prescribed standard of efficiency over and above the eligibility criteria
     is provided by the Rules or the State, it would not be for the Commission F
     to impose any extra qualification/standard supposedly for maintaining
     minimum efficiency which, it thinks, may be necessary. No consultation
     with the commssion, in such matters, is envisaged in view of Clause (4)
     of Article 320 of the Constitution.

          As observed earlier, for the purpose of shortlisting it would not at all G
     be necessary to provide cut-off marks. Any number of given candidates
     could be taken out from the top of the list upto the number of the candidates
     required in order of merit. For example, there may be a situation where
     more than required number of candidates may obtain marks above the cut-
     off marks say for example out of 10,000 if 8,000 or 6,000 candidates obtain H
    870                   SUPREME: COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 45% marks then all of them may have to be called for further tests and
    interview etc. It would in that event not serve the purpose of shortlisting
    by this method to obtain the given ratio of candidates, and the vacancy
    available. For 100 vacancies at the most 500 candidates need be called. If
    that is so any candidate who is otherwise eligible upto the 500th position
B   whatever be the percentage above or below the fixed percentage would be
    eligible to be called for further tests. Thus the purpose of shortlisting would
    be achieved without prescribing any minimum cut-off marks.

          In the case in hand, it was not for the Commission to have fixed any
    cut-off marks in respect of reserved category candidates. The result has
C   evidently been that candidates otherwise qualified for interview stand
    rejected on the basis of merit say, they do not have the upto the mark merit,
    as prescribed by the Commission. The selection was by interview of the
    eligible candidates. It is certainly the responsibility of the Commission to

D
    make the selection of efficient people amongst those who are eligible for
    consideration. The unsuitable candidates could well be rejected in the
    selection by interview. It is not the question of subservience but there are
                                                                                      .
    certain matters of policies, on which the decision is to be taken by the
    Government. The Commission derives its powers under Article 320 of the
    Constitution as well as its limits too. Independent and fair working of the
E   Commission is of utmost importance. It is also not supposed to function
    under any pressure of the government, as submitted on behalf of the
    appellant Commission. But at the same time it has to conform to the
    provisions of the law and has also to abide by the rules and regulations
    on the subject and to take into account the policy decisions which are
F   within the domain of the State Government. It cannot impose its own policy
    decision in a matter beyond its purview.

          The appellant has also placed reliance upon a decision reported in
    1997(3) SCC page 90, Dr. Sadhna Devi & Ors. v. State of UP. & Ors.
    It, however, deals with an entirely different situation. The matter pertains
G   to the admission to post-graduate course in the medical colleges. An
    entrance test was prescribed which also prescribed minimum qualifying
    marks. But so far the candidates belonging to S.C. and Scheduled Tribe
    candidates the condition of obtaining the minimum qualifying marks was
    removed by means of a Circular issued by the State Government. The
H   Circular of the State Government was challenged by the other candidates,
          STATE v. MANJIT SINGH [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.]                   871
pleading discrimination. It was found that though regulating the selection A
procedure was within the competence of the State Government but
prescribing eligibility criteria for maintaining proper standards, fell within
the competence of Medical Council of India. In that view of the matter,
it was held that the State Government had decided to hold entrance
examination for selection instead of merit of M.B.B.S. examination and B
thus having prescribed minimum qualifying marks, it was not open to it
to do away with that criteria for reserved category candidates altogether.
It was thus found that once a decision was taken to prescribe minimum
qualifying marks it could not be said by the State Government that there
would be none for the reserved category candidates since it was within the
competence of the Medical Council of India to have Prescribed the criteria C
for maintaining proper standards. Therefore, the stand of the appellant
Commission in this case that, it being an independent body, is not
subservient to any authority or the State Government, hence it is competent
for it to lay down minimum efficiency standards including in the matters
which may fall within the purview of Article 335 of the Constitution, is D
erroneous.

      Having considered the matter, we find that no interference is called
for in the judgment of the High Court. In the result, all the appeals are
dismissed with costs to be borne by the appellant Punjab Public Service E
Commission.

B.K.M.                                                Appeals dismissed.