U.D. LAMA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 180 · Decided: 26-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
U.D. LAMA AND OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS 
NOVEMBER 26, 1996 
B 
[A.M. AHMADI, CJ., S.C. SEN AND K.S. PARIPOORNAM, JJ.] 
Se1Vice Law : 
Sikkim State Civil Rules, 1977-Rule 4 (1)(2)(3)-Rules providing for 
C recruitment by three methods-The Government holding written and oral 
tests-On the basis of merit appellants were appointetJ-This procedure 
depriving many eligible officers-'1ubsequently, Public Se1Vice Commission 
constituted and number of eligible officers selected including those who were 
selected on the date on which the appellants was recruited-Notifications 
issued by the Government regarding their seniority-Retrospective-Whether 
D co1rect or not---Held, not illegal and so is valid. 
When the Sikkim State Civil Rules, 1977 came into force on 01-07· 
1977, there was no Pnblic Service Commission in the State. It was only on 
20·11-1981 that a Chairman was appointed who assumed office on 11-01· 
E 1982. Under the Circumstances, on 10-08-1981 the Government took a 
decision to induct officers who were already working under the Govern· 
ment into the service by way of selection. A decision was taken to hold a 
written examination and viva voce for selection to the service. 
A Notification was issued on 16·09-1961 for this purpose. On the 
F 
basis of written examination as well as viva voce, a merit list was prepared 
which was sent to the State Public Service Commission, After obtaining its 
approval, 29 officers [appellants herein] were appointed to the service by 
Notification dated 13· 12-1982. By another Notification dated 17-04-1984 
inter se seniority of those 29 officers were fixed. 
G 
On 27-03-1989, the Sikkim Government General Officers Association 
made a representation to the State Government for induction, of the · 
officers belonging to that Association who were not inducted earlier into 
service. After the consideration of this representation by a Committee, by 
a Notification dated 29· 12-1990 the State Government decided to induct 
H 
suitable officers except those specified therein into the services. It also laid 
180 
U.D. LAMA v. STATE 
181 
down a method for selection and determination of seniority. The SikkilQ A 
Public Service Commission, thereupon invited applications from eligible 
officers. Nearly 166 officers were found eligible and were inducted into 
service. 
The appellants herein felt aggrieved by the action of the Government 
and thought that their seniority in service had nut been protected. Their 
grievance was considered by another committee. The reports of the two 
committees were implemented and the seniority list of the employees was 
redrawn by the State Government. Hence, appellants filed writ petition 
before the High Court which was dismissed. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that, they were ap-
pointed to the service in 1982, and that, those who had failed or had not 
appeared in the 1981 tests and were inducted to the service pursuant to 
the Notification dated 29-12-1990 could not be retrospectively promoted to 
disturb the seniority of the appellants in the service. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The only door that was open to the appellants under the 
Rules to enter the service was through Rule 4(l)(b) of Sikkim State Civil 
Rules, 1977. They might have also joined through competition but neither 
B 
c 
D 
of the two steps were taken or could be taken. [192-H] 
E 
1.2. Jn the instant case the new recruits shall be treated to have been 
recruited on the day the appellants were recruited. The State Government 
has not done anything contrary or wrong but has really restored the 
injustice done to the respondents by the State Governmenfs failure to 
recruit them into the service in accordance with Rule 4 (i)(b). [192-G] 
2.1. The induction of these 29 officers [appellants] however, validly 
and properly it might have been done does not conclude the cases so far 
F 
as other officers eligible at that time and who might have failed or not 
appeared at the examination are concerned. At the time these 29 officers G 
were inducted, 78 in all were eligible under Rule 4(1)(b) and Rule 2(b). So 
the cases of remaining 49 officers will have to be considered in the light of 
Rules 4(3) and 5(4). [188-D-E] 
2.2. The point in dispute has been examined in depth by two commit-
tees set up by the State Government. The earlier judgement of this court H 
182 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A 
upholding the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.