Comparison with administrative law in Turkey
🏛 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: Recruitment of Civil Servants
India vs. Turkey – Administrative Law Perspective
⚖️ 1. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
🇮🇳 India
Governed by Part XIV of the Indian Constitution:
Articles 309 to 311 deal with the services under the Union and the States.
Article 16(1) & (4) ensures equality of opportunity in public employment.
UPSC and State Public Service Commissions (SPSC) oversee recruitment.
🇹🇷 Turkey
Governed by:
The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey (1982), especially Articles 70–74.
The Civil Servants Law No. 657, the principal statute regulating public servants.
State Personnel Presidency and ÖSYM (Student Selection and Placement Center) organize public personnel selection exams (KPSS).
⚖️ 2. CORE PRINCIPLES OF RECRUITMENT
| Principle | India | Turkey |
|---|---|---|
| Equality of opportunity | Art. 16 Constitution | Art. 70 Constitution |
| Merit-based selection | Competitive exams via UPSC/SPSC | KPSS exam system |
| Legal regulation | Rules under Art. 309, Civil Services Rules | Civil Servants Law No. 657 |
| Protection from arbitrariness | Art. 311, principles of natural justice | Judicial review under Turkish Admin Courts |
🇮🇳 IMPORTANT CASE LAWS: INDIA (DETAILED)
1. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985)
Held: Procedural safeguards under Article 311 cannot be bypassed arbitrarily. Even during dismissal, civil servants must get a fair hearing unless in rare exceptions (national security, etc.).
2. State of U.P. v. Rajeshwar Prasad (2001)
Held: Appointments not in accordance with statutory rules are void. Rule of law requires strict adherence to recruitment norms.
3. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)
Held: Emphasized the independence of recruiting bodies like UPSC and stressed transparency in public appointments.
4. Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985)
Held: The Court invalidated selections when members of the selection committee had conflicts of interest, upholding impartiality.
5. K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka (1985)
Held: Explained how reservations must balance social justice with administrative efficiency; excessive relaxation in standards may defeat the purpose of merit.
🇹🇷 IMPORTANT CASE LAWS: TURKEY (DETAILED)
1. Danıştay (Council of State) Decision No. 1991/6202
Facts: A candidate was rejected due to failure in medical examination after passing KPSS.
Held: The Council held that rejection without transparent medical standards violated procedural fairness.
2. Danıştay 12th Chamber, Decision No. 2007/1581
Facts: A candidate was excluded due to a criminal case, though not convicted.
Held: The Court ruled that unless a final conviction exists, disqualification is premature and violates the presumption of innocence.
3. Danıştay Decision No. 2005/3763
Facts: Recruitment was annulled because the selection committee exceeded its legal powers in setting additional eligibility criteria.
Held: The Court declared that recruitment conditions must be determined by law, not administrative discretion.
4. Constitutional Court of Turkey, E. 2001/41, K. 2002/25
Facts: A provision allowing direct appointment without examination was challenged.
Held: The Court struck it down, affirming that merit and competitive exams are constitutionally mandated.
5. Danıştay 5th Chamber, Decision No. 2010/4563
Facts: A civil servant was dismissed based on vague disciplinary grounds.
Held: The Court held that disciplinary actions must follow due process and specific legal grounds; arbitrary dismissal is invalid.
6. Danıştay 8th Chamber, Decision No. 2014/913
Facts: Female candidate denied selection based on subjective assessment of ‘unsuitability’.
Held: Gender-based or subjective disqualification criteria were struck down as violating equality under Article 10 of the Turkish Constitution.
🔍 COMPARATIVE OBSERVATIONS
| Aspect | 🇮🇳 India | 🇹🇷 Turkey |
|---|---|---|
| Role of Exam | Central (UPSC/SPSC) | Central (KPSS via ÖSYM) |
| Judicial Oversight | Supreme Court & High Courts | Danıştay (Council of State) & Constitutional Court |
| Legal Protection for Civil Servants | Article 311, Natural Justice Principles | Law No. 657, Constitutional Safeguards |
| Discretionary Powers | Limited by rules and procedures | Also limited by law, especially post-2000 reforms |
| Role of Constitutional Principles | Fundamental Rights enforceable by courts | Equality (Art. 10), Right to Work (Art. 70) |
✅ CONCLUSION
Both India and Turkey strongly emphasize:
Merit-based recruitment
Equality of opportunity
Judicial scrutiny against arbitrariness
Rule of law and procedural fairness
However:
India has a longer tradition of judicial activism through the Supreme Court and High Courts, especially with public interest litigations.
Turkey’s Danıştay and Constitutional Court play a more centralized role in administrative judicial review, particularly in appointments and dismissals.
Both systems uphold public accountability and transparent recruitment, though Turkey has historically dealt with political influence in bureaucracy, leading to reforms especially after the 2000s.
RELATED Blog
0 comments