Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

Madhya Pradesh PSC
examination, Article 320 empowers the Public Service Commission to modify the rules. It is, therefore,
clear that the Public Service Commission had no authority to amend Rule 12 or modify it to any extent.
It is also not contended by the learned Deputy Advocate General that the Public Service Commission
had any authority to amend or modify Rule 12. In the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme
Court, quoted above, it has been clearly held that according to the rules the final merit list would be
drawn up according to the aggregate of marks obtained by the candidate in the written test plus viva
voce examination, and therefore their Lordships held that there was no power in the Board to prescribe
additional qualification prescribing minimum marks 40 for being qualified in final test and this was held
to be bad. It is, therefore, apparent that although the Public Service Commission in the advertisement
mentioned that the marks of written test will be added for purposes of selection but that part of the
advertisement is not in accordance with Rule 12 and, therefore, could not be enforced. In this view of
the matter, therefore, the question of prescribing a further criteria does not arise.
16. But, if this question of additional criteria is examined independently, it is clear that condition
No.(6) of the advertisement and Instruction No.13 of the Instructions issued to the candidates nowhere
provide that there is a requirement of obtaining minimum marks in each paper in written examination
and also in the interview and as these two criteria were not even included in the advertisement, there
is no authority with the Public Service Commission to change this criteria at the later stage as their
Lordships of the Supreme Court in the decision quoted above clearly held that if this requirement of
minimum marks is not in the rules, the Selection Board had no authority to impose such a restriction.
Although no positive allegation of mala fide or facts to justify mala fide has been made but from the
circumstances that some attempt was made at a later stage to change this criteria to favour some
candidates but in our opinion it is not necessary to into that question as it is apparent that as Rule 12
did not provide for any written examination, the question of adding of marks in the written examination
and also laying of criteria of obtaining minimum marks in each paper in the written examination is
without authority and, therefore, that could not be justified. It is also clear that as Rule 12 did not
prescribe any criteria of obtaining minimum marks at the interview, that criteria also could not be
justified within the language of Rule 12. It is therefore plain that all that which was done at the stage of
preparation of the selection of the candidates is not justified and is without the authority of law.
17. As discussed earlier, it was within the competence of the Public Service Commission to hold
a written test for purposes of finding out eligible candidates who could be called for interview and it is
673