Non-Consultation With Public Service Commission Won’t Invalidate Appointments: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a statutory requirement for consultation with a Public Service Commission regarding temporary or officiating appointments, when framed as a public duty, is directory and not mandatory.

A Bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe held that non-compliance with such a requirement does not invalidate an appointment, particularly where the failure to consult is solely attributable to the State and not the appointee, who has no control over the referral process.

Court, therefore, held that the State's failure to consult the Public Service Commission did not invalidate the ad hoc promotions of Naib Tehsildars to the post of Deputy Collector.

Why did the Supreme Court hold that non-consultation with the Public Service Commission did not invalidate the promotions?

Court was dealing with an appeal filed by the State of Uttarakhand against the final judgment and order passed by the Uttarakhand High Court on August 8, 2019. The matter related to the promotion of Naib Tehsildars to the post of Deputy Collectors.

The high court had taken note of Rule 24(4) of the Rules and Regulation 5(a) of the Uttaranchal Public Service Commission (Limitations of Functions) Regulations, 2003. These provisions stipulated that where a person continued in a higher post on a temporary or officiating basis for more than one year, approval of the Commission had to be obtained.

The high court had held that since the Rules authorised the Commission to approve an earlier irregular promotion, it was obligatory for the State to refer the irregular or ad hoc appointments of the promotees to the Commission for approval.

Since the State had failed to do so, the high court held that it could not take away the rights conferred on the promotees under the Rules.

It accordingly directed that if vacancies of Deputy Collector in the promotee quota existed during 2007-2008, the promotees would be entitled to the benefit of regular appointment from October 1, 2007, the date of their initial appointment, until their regular appointment by way of promotion.

The State Government was also directed to revise the seniority list of Deputy Collectors and complete the exercise within four months.

State cannot take advantage of its own failure to consult PSC

Hearing the appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the appointment order issued in 2007 described the promotions as a "stop-gap arrangement" and provided that the promotees would revert to the post of Tehsildar once direct recruits reported for duty.

"No doubt, the Commission was not consulted. However, the consultation being a directory requirement, the default of consultation does not invalidate the ad hoc appointments by way of ad hoc promotions of the promotees to the post of Deputy Collector," the Bench held.

Court said it would not be fair to allow the State to take advantage of its own continuing default by treating the promotees' ad hoc appointments as bad in law.

It noted that the promotions had been recommended by a duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee and were eventually regularised by the competent authority.

"Therefore, non-consultation with the Commission does not disentitle the promotees to the benefit of proviso Rule 24(4) of the Rules," Court held.

Court also noted that under the proviso to Rule 24(4), an officer promoted on an officiating basis is entitled to count continuous ad hoc service for seniority if the promotion was made within the prescribed promotee quota and was subsequently approved by the Commission.

Promotees entitled to count ad hoc service for seniority

In the present case, the Bench held that the promotees were entitled to count their ad hoc service for seniority since they had been appointed to the posts of Deputy Collector within their prescribed quota.

"The high court, therefore, erred in directing the State Government to determine the vacancies of Deputy Collector in the promotee quota for the year 2007-2008. The promotees are held entitled to benefit of Rule 24(4) of the Rules," the Bench said.

Holding that the promotees were entitled to the benefit of regular appointment as Deputy Collectors with effect from October 1, 2007, the Bench directed the State Government to issue a revised seniority list of Deputy Collectors within three months.

The Supreme Court modified the high court's judgment and clarified that the decision would have no bearing on the claims of interveners who were promoted to the post of Deputy Collector in subsequent years.

Case Title: The State of Uttarakhand Vs Jagdish Chandra Kandpal & Ors

Bench: Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe

Date of Judgment: July 29, 2026