LexSTATE OF SIKKIM versus SURENDRA PRASAD SHARMA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF SIKKIM A v. SURENDRA PRASAD SHARMA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. APRIL 19, 1994 [A.M. AHMADI AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] B Constitution of India-Article 371,F(kj-J'Laws in Force"-Held, in- cludes subordinate legislation and hence includes Sikkim Government Estab- lishment Rules 1974-Adaptation Orders under Article 371-F (1) and adoption of the said Rule with modifications under Ariicle 309-held, did not C detract from their Character as "law in force"-Non obstante clause protects all existing laws even if they conflict with provisions of the Constitution. Constitution of India-Article 16(3)-Held, protects preference given to residents of Sikkim under Rule 4( 4) of the Sikkim Government Establishment Rules, I974. D Constitution of India-Article 14-Tests for classification reiterate~ Held, emphasis is not only on <le jure equality but also on de facto equality. Interpretation of statute-Constitutio,,_Transitory provisiorn-Liberal construction must be adopted. E The Sikkim Government Establishment Rules, 1974. were in force before Sikkim became part of the territory of India. Rule 4(4) of the said Rules provided inter alia for giving preference to Sikkimese nationals over non-Sikkimese nationals in the matter of employment under the Govern- ment, and also for replacement of non Sikkimese appointees by suitable Sikkimese candidates as and when they became available. F By the Constitution 35th Amendment Act, 1974 Sikkim became an associate State of the Union of India and by the Constitution 36th Amend- ment Act, 1975 which came into force with effect from 26.4.1979, Sikkim G became a full-fledged State of the Union of India. The latter amendment introduced Article 371-F in the Constitution, making special provisions with respect to the State of Sikkim, including continuation of laws in force. After Sikkim became a State of the Union of India the Directorate of Survey and Settlement of the Government of Sikkim created and adver- H 563 564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] 3 S.C.R. A tised certain temporary posts. The Respondents who were "non locals" applied for and were appointed in different capacities in 1976. When the sunrey work was completed, the services of surplus employees were ter- minated in 1980, 1981 and 1982. While "locals" were retained, the "non-lo- cals" were relieved regardless of their seniority. In the meantime, by a B c notification dated 17 .11.1980 the Governor of Sikkim in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution adopted the Sikkim Government Establishment Rules, 1974 as the Rules governing recruitment and condi- tions of service of persons appointed to the services and posts in connec- tion with the affairs of the State of Sikkim with modifications, with effect from 26th April, 1975. The Respondents challenged the termination of their. services by . means of writ petitions before the Sikkim High Court. The State sought to support its action with reference to Rules 4(4) read with Article 371-F (k) and (1). By his judgment and order dated 29.2.1984 a Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and quashed the orders of termination, holding inter alia D that with the incorporation of Sikkim as a component State of the Union of India, Sikkimese a nationality ceased to exist as a politic-legal concept and hence Rule 4(4) ceased to have any efficacy in law. The High Court further held that even assuming that the expression "Sikkimese Nationals" could be read as and equated with "locals", the classification between E "locals" and "non-locals" could not be sustained on the strength of the non obstante clause in Article 371-F since the Rules adopted under Article 309 acquired a distinct legal entity apart from the Rules as they existed prior to 26.4.1975 and the said Rules under Article 309 were required to satisfy the equality test under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. F The State of Sikkim appealed to this Court by special leave. Allowing the appeals, this Court HEL.D : I.I. It is well" settled that while article 14 prohibits dis- crimination and requires that pe, sons subjected to any legislation should G be treated alike, it does not forbid classification for implementing the right to equality guaranteed by it provided the classification is based on an intelligible differential which distinguishes persons or things thut are > grouped together from others left out of the group and that the said >-- differential has a ra
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.