Chandigarh, Jan. 22 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court has ruled that unless empowered by a statutory framework, a public service commission cannot embark upon character verification, antecedent inquiry, confirmation of credentials or adjudication of document validity, while discharging its constitutional or statutory duty of selection and recommendation and that the same remains within exclusive authority of the appointing authority/employer. "Commission is a constitutional authority with a limited mandate and its core function is to complete the selection process i.e., conduct examination, declare results and make recommendations. The Commission cannot act as an adjudicatory authority on disputed questions of eligibility or experience by engaging in scrutiny and verification of the experience certificate of the petitioner. If such a practice is allowed to continue unchecked, it will enable less meritorious candidates to steal a march over those who are higher in merit and deserve a fair consideration," the bench of justice Harpreet Singh Brar said. The court was dealing with a plea from one Prasoon Sharma, who had applied for the post of a manager (utility) in Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC). The posts were advertised by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) and in November 2021 he was declared successful. Scrutiny of documents took place before HPSC on November 24, 2021 and no objection was raised then. However, subsequently, he was told that he does not meet criteria about domain experience. After correspondence with HPSC failed, he approached the high court in 2023, the plea said. The court found that the commission had embarked upon verification of credentials of the petitioner in a "self-anointed capacity". "The commission is a creature of Article 320 of the Constitution of India, which bestows upon it the power to conduct examinations and be consulted on recruitment related matters. However, the final authority to appoint a candidate vests in the appointing authority. As such, mere selection is not equivalent to appointment. Appointment falls under the exclusive domain of the employer and cannot be usurped by the Commission by taking upon the role of a super-employer," the court observed, adding that the ultimate appointment of a candidate post-selection is dependent upon multiple factors such as the applicable service rules and government instructions. Moreover, verification of documents and assessment of eligibility of the candidates often pose fact-intensive questions pertaining to equivalence, authenticity of certificates, suitability of the candidate etc., which can only be answered by the employer, it added. The court noted that the conduct of the commission in depriving the petitioner of an opportunity of public employment by "exceeding its mandate and disturbing administrative hierarchy is unbecoming of a constitutionally established authority"....