The order came in some six petitions challenging the selection of labour court judges on the ground that it is being done in violation of the mandate contained in Article 234 of the Constitution, according to which judges of labour court, industrial tribunal and industrial courts will be appointed by the Governor as per rules framed after consulting the concerned high court and public service commission.

Some petitions also contended that the selection procedure was rife with mala fide and procedural irregularities. Besides, marks secured in the written test was not considered while preparing the final list, it was contended. But the court observed that it found nothing illegal in the fact that written test was conducted to shortlist candidates for interview.

Besides, it was alleged that though there were 25 vacancies and that there were several scheduled caste, scheduled tribe and women candidates, GPSC did not select them, with ulterior motives, making the whole selection process illegal. To this, the GPSC submitted that selection was made solely on merit. The court observed that there was nothing illegal about the selection process.

However, about the consultation issue, the division bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice M.H. Kadri, which passed the order, observed that the state government framed recruitment rules for appointing labour court judges without consulting it (court). The court did not agree with the submission of the counsel for the selected candidates that the high court had been consulted as a labour and employment department deputy secretary had written to high court registrar.

The court observed that consultation means effective consultation. Quoting from a judgment, the court stated that the high court and the selection commission should be informed by the Governor that he proposes to Recruitment Rules, which then should be submitted to the two authorities.

This was to preserve the independence of the judiciary from the executive, the court observed. ``Our Constitution visualises separation of the judiciary from the executive''. Though advice, if any, by the high court or the commission is not binding on the governor, the latter would have to take into consideration the opinion expressed by the two institutions, the court observed. But taking a practical view in the present case, the court observed that the state government, with good intentions, asked the GPSC to select judges for labour court. Though consultation as required under Article 234 of the Constitution did not take place, the court observed that it did not want to quash the entire selection process.