SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. AHMADI AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.
State of Sikkim, Appellant
Versus
Surendra Prasad Sharma and others etc.etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 4918 of 1984 with C.A. Nos. 4919 to 4938 of 1984 and 1534 of 1986,
D/-19-4-1994
Sikkim Government Establishment Rules, 1974 - Rule 4(4) - Promotion from One Grade to Another - Direct Recruitment - Sikkim Became a part of Territory of India - Appeals by special leave bearing on true scope and which were in force before Sikkim became part of territory of India - Relevant part of the said Rule with which we are concerned - Appointment to service under Government shall be by one or both the methods indicated below - Direct recruitment - Promotion from one grade to another - Direct recruitment shall include appointment on contract, and appointment on deputation - Provided these two types of appointment shall be made having due regard to the exact nature of specific duties and responsibilities and the qualifications required for the post, and further provided that (i) Non-Sikkimese nationals may be appointed only when suitably qualified and experienced Sikkimese nationals are not available, and (ii) replacement of such appointees by suitable Sikkimese candidates may be made as and when available – Held, if a provision in the Establishment Rules appears to offend Article 16(2), since such a provision is permissible by virtue of Art. 16(3) and the Parliament permits its continuance by a special provision, Art. 371F(k), the said requirement giving preference to locals cannot be struck down as unconstitutional and any action based on the said provision would not be inconsistent with Part III of Constitution. That being so we think that the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Judge in the High Court is not sustainable - Appeals allowed.
Judgment
AHMADI, J.:- A short but interesting question arises in these appeals by special leave bearing on the true scope and meaning of Rule 4(4) of the Sikkim Government Establishment Rules, 1974, (hereinafter called the Rules), which were in force before Sikkim became a part of the territory of India. The relevant part of the said Rule with which we are concerned reads as follows:
"4(4): Appointment: (A) Appointment to service under the Government shall be by one or both the methods indicated below:
(a) Direct recruitment;
(b) Promotion from one grade to another.
(B) Direct recruitment shall include appointment on contract, and appointment on deputation:
Provided these two types of appointment shall be made having due regard to the exact nature of specific duties and responsibilities and the qualifications required for the post, and further provided that (i) Non-Sikkimese nationals may be appointed only when suitably qualified and experienced Sikkimese nationals are not available, and (ii) replacement of such appointees by suitable Sikkimese candidates may be made as and when available."
Fortunately, the facts on which this group of cases arise were admitted in the High Court. The admitted facts were recorded by the High Court on 14-9-1983 and the said record was signed by the learned counsel for the parties in token of their having accepted them as forming the factual matrix for the decision of the writ petitions. But before we set out the factual matrix we may take note of the historical developments leading to Sikkim becoming one of the States of India.
2. Pursuant to an agreement reached between the Chogyal of Sikkim and leaders of the political parties representing the people of Sikkim on the one hand and the Govt. of India on the other, the Sikkim Assembly unanimously passed the Government of Sikkim Bill, 1974, which was duly promulgated by the Chogyal on 4-7-1974 as the Government of Sikkim Act, 1974. By this Act the Government of Sikkim was empowered to take steps for seeking representation of the people of Sikkim in Indias Parliamentary system. A formal request to this effect was made to the Government of India which gave effect to the Will of the people of Sikkim by amending the Constitution of India. By the Constitution 35th Amendment Act, 1974, Art. 2A was inserted in the Constitution which ran as under:
"2A. Sikkim to be associated with the Union. - Sikkim, which comprises the territories specified in the Tenth Schedule, shall be associated with the Union on the terms and conditions set out in that Schedule."
The terms and conditions of Sikkims association with the Union of India were set out in Part B of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. Thereafter a special opinion poll was conducted by the Government of Sikkim on 14-4-1975 on the basis whereof the Chief Minister of Sikkim requested the Government of India to admit Sikkim as a fullfledged State in the First Schedule to the Constitution. Consequently by the 36th Amendment Act, 1975, entry 22 was added and inserted in the First Schedule whereby Sikkim became a part of India. Art. 371F was also introduced in our Constitution, clauses (k) and (1) whereof provided as under:
"371-F.Special provisions with respect to the State of Sikkim - Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,-
(k) all laws in force immediately before the appointed day in the territories comprised in the State of Sikkim or any part thereof shall continue to be in force therein until amended or repealed by a competent Legislature or other competent authority;
(1) for the purpose of facilitating the application of any such law as is referred to in clause (k) in relation to the administration of the State of Sikkim and for the purpose of bringing the provisions of any such law into accord with the provisions of this Constitution, the President may, within two years from the appointed day, by order, make such adaptations and modifications of the law, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as may be nec
applied : Union of India v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Weaving) Co. Ltd.
Rajkumar Narsingh Pratap Singh Deo v. State of orissa
State of M.P. v. Lal Bhargavendra Singh
relied on : Edward Mills Co. Ltd., Beawar v. State of Ajmer
referred to : Director of Industries and Commerce, Govt. of A.P. Hyderabad v. Venkata Reddy
A.V.S. Narasimha Rao v. State of A.P.
P.L. Lakhanpal v. State of J and K
Sampat Prakash v. State of J and K
Abdul Ghani v. State of J and K
followed : R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.