Page:29357 2016 1 1501 44512 Judgement 11-May-2023.pdf/76

PART K 2. The Bill seeks to give effect to the above proposals.”

114. The Balakrishnan Committee specifically dealt with Entry 41 (relating to services) of the State List. Its report notes that Entry 41 is not available to the Union Territories, as (i) the Entry only mentions ‘State’ and not ‘Union Territory’; (ii) Part XIV of the Constitution only refers to services in connection with the affairs of the State and services in connection with the affairs of the Union; and (iii) administration of the Union Territories is the responsibility of the Union and thus it falls within the purview of ‘affairs of the Union’. The Report stated:

“8.1 PUBLIC SERVICES IN THE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

8.1.2. Entry 41 of the State List mentions “State Public Services: State Public Services Commission”. Obviously, this Entry is not applicable to Union territories because it mentions only “State” and not “Union territories”. This view is reinforced by the fact that the Constitution divides public services in India into two categories, namely, services in connection with the affairs of the Union and services in connection with the affairs of the State as is clear from the various provisions in Part XIV of the Constitution. There is no third category of services covering the services of the Union territories. The obvious reason is that the administration of the Union territory is the constitutional responsibility of the Union under Article 239 and as such comes under “affairs of the Union”. Consequently, the public services for the administration of any Union territory should form part of the public services in connection with the affairs of the Union.”

115. The Balakrishnan Committee opined that the setting up of a Legislative Assembly with a Council of Ministers will not disturb the position discussed above. According to the Report: