JUDGMENT :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The Petitioners No.1 to 15 are the grandchildren of Government Servants to the Government of Sikkim prior to 31.12.1969. The Petitioners No.16 to 21 are the children of Government Servants to the Government of Sikkim on or before 31.12.1969. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the state action, by which an insertion was made in Notification No.66/Home/95, dated 22.11.1995 (for brevity, “Notification of 1995”), in Item No.5 therein, qualifying the issuance of Certificate of Identification (for short, “ COI ”), to persons whose father/husband has or had been in the Sikkim Government Service on or before 31.12.1969, “for the purpose of employment only”, by superseding Memorandum No.5(92)5/GEN/EST., dated 09.04.1981 (for short, “Memorandum of 1981”) . They also assail Item No.5 appearing in Notification No.57/Home/96, dated 27.09.1996 (for short, “Notification of 1996”), which further qualified the sentence supra by insertion of the words “and for no other purpose” causing the sentence to read as follows;

“………………….. Certificate of Identification obtained by such persons shall be for the purpose of employment only and for no other purpose”

Their grievance further extends to letter bearing No. GOS/Home-II/94/14(Part)/2687, dated 02.06.2006 (for short, “Letter dated 02.06.2006”), issued by the Respondent No.2, to the effect that Item No.5 of the Notification of 1995 does not entitle the third generation, i.e., the grandchildren of persons who were initially issued COI on the basis of Government employment before 31.12.1969, to obtain COI . Insertion of Item No.4A by Notification No.119/Home/2010, dated 26.10.2010 (for short, “Notification of 2010”), below Item No.4 of the Notification of 1995, is also impugned. The insertion it is averred is discriminatory, inasmuch as descendants of persons falling under Item Nos.1 to 4 of the Notification would always be eligible for obtaining COI s to the exclusion of persons in Item No.5. That, the Petitioners by such exclusion are being treated as “non-locals” in Sikkim, whereas, they have always considered themselves as „locals? and „Sikkimese?. That, the discrimination strikes at the Petitioners? right to live with dignity in their own land besides subjecting them to an identity crisis, hence the reliefs claimed.

2. The facts may be briefly traversed to comprehend the dispute with clarity. By the Constitution (Thirty-Sixth) Amendment Act, 1975, on 26.04.1975 (Appointed day), Sikkim became a State in the Indian Union. Article 371F was inserted in the Constitution of India (for short “Constitution”) as a special provision for the State of Sikkim. Clause (l) of Article 371F inter alia provides that the President may extend any law to the State or repeal any law existing in the State, within two years from the appointed day. Prior to Sikkim joining the Indian Union, the Monarch (Chogyal) of the erstwhile Kingdom of Sikkim promulgated the SIKKIM SUBJECTS REGULATION , 1961 (for brevity “Regulation of 1961”) enumerating criteria for persons to become Sikkim Subjects inter alia by virtue of birth in Sikkim immediately preceding the Regulation and by ordinarily being a resident of Sikkim for not less than fifteen years prior to the Regulation of 1961. In addition to the above, under Regulation 8(iii)(a), a person could become a naturalized Subject if he was in the service of the Government of Sikkim for a period of not less than ten years immediately preceding the date of his application, and under Regulation 8(iii)(b) if he had rendered meritorious service to the State and Certificate thereof was granted to him. The Sikkim Government Establishment Rules, 1974 (hereinafter, “Establishment Rules, 1974”) also came to be promulgated by the Chogyal to govern recruitment and conditions of service for persons appointed in Gove