Supreme Court Allows Public Service Commission's Promotion List and Directs Government to Finalise Select List for Assistant Labour Commissioners. The Court directs the State Government to promote all persons recommended by the Public Service Commission within the 50% quota under Rule 5 of the U.P. Labour Service Rules, 1991.

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court of India, in an appeal preferred by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad, examined the implementation of promotion rules for the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The proceedings arose from a select list that had been prepared by the Selection Committee but had not been finalised by the State Government because of a pending writ petition. The Court's order addressed the need to complete the promotion process in accordance with the statutory quota. The background revealed that the U.P. Labour Service Rules, 1991 governed recruitment and promotion to the Uttar Pradesh Labour Service. Under Rule 5 of those Rules, Assistant Labour Commissioners were eligible for promotion from feeder posts to the extent of a fifty per cent quota, while the remaining fifty per cent of vacancies were to be filled by direct recruitment. At the relevant time, twenty-three posts of Assistant Labour Commissioner were available for promotion. On September 13, 1993, the Selection Committee, which comprised members of the Public Service Commission and departmental personnel, considered the inter se claims of eligible candidates from feeder posts. After due consideration, the Selection Committee forwarded a select list to the State Government for approval, but that approval was made subject to the result of Writ Petition No. 5744 of 1986, which had been filed by one Mr. Awasthi. During the pendency of that writ petition, Mr. Awasthi retired as Deputy Labour Officer pursuant to directions issued by a competent court. The retirement of the writ petitioner removed the legal obstacle that had prevented the finalisation of the select list, and therefore the claims of the other candidates recommended by the Selection Committee required consideration and finalisation. The central legal issue considered by the Court was whether the State Government should finalise the select list recommended by the Public Service Commission and thereafter make promotions to the twenty-three posts of Assistant Labour Commissioner within the fifty per cent quota prescribed under Rule 5 of the U.P. Labour Service Rules, 1991. The dispute did not involve any challenge to the validity of the Rules or the quota; rather, it concerned the administrative delay caused by the pending writ petition and the need to implement the recommendations of the Public Service Commission. Neither the order nor the available record recorded detailed submissions by the parties. The Court heard the counsel for the parties and observed that the admitted facts as transpired from the record made it clear that the Assistant Labour Commissioners were eligible to be promoted under Rule 5 to their quota of fifty per cent. The Court also noted that the Selection Committee had functioned properly and forwarded the list, and that the only impediment, the pending writ petition, had become infructuous due to the retirement of the writ petitioner. In its analysis, the Court emphasised that the Government was under a duty to finalise the list as recommended by the Public Service Commission and to act in accordance with the Rules. The Court directed the State Government to finalise the select list and then make promotions to the substantive posts of Assistant Labour Commissioner according to the Rules for all persons recommended by the Public Service Commission within the quota prescribed under the Rules. The order disposed of the appeal with no order as to costs.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The Supreme Court directed the Government to finalise the list as recommended by the Public Service Commission and then make promotions to the substantive posts according to Rules of all the persons recommended by the Public Service Commission within the quota prescribed under the Rules. The appeal was disposed of. No costs.

Law Points