KAMAL SINGH RAWAT Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notwithstanding their voluminous records long narration of facts and laboured endeavour to cover large number of grounds, it could be ascertained, though at a late stage, that this Writ Petition, as well as 21 others of similar nature, being Nos. 18 to 20 and Nos. 22 to 39 of 1982 involve determination of a short question and that the facts necessary for the disposal thereof are also short and even undisputed. The short facts and the question involved were accordingly noted in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as for the respondents in the order dated 14-9-1983 and the same was also signed by the learned counsel for the parties, signifying thereby that they also accepted the facts noted and the question framed in the order to be the only points of facts and law requiring consideration in all these Writ Petitions. The relevant portion of the order dated 14-9-1983 may, therefore, be reproduced as hereunder:-

(2.) It may be noted that in the written argument filed on behalf of the State and the other respondents by Mr. N.B. Kharga, the learned Government Advocate, the respondents have also confined their argument solely to the question noted in the Order quoted above, though in the written argument filed on behalf of the petitioners, some other questions, in addition to the one noted in the Order, have also been dealt with. When the attention of Mr. A. Moulik, the learned Advocate for the petitioners, was drawn thereto, he frankly submitted that those other questions were so dealt with as they were argued by him at some earlier stages, but that the petitioners thereafter have all agreed that all their petitions may be disposed of on the question of law noted in the Order. This Judgment would accordingly dispose of all the 22 Writ Petitions being Nos. 17 to 20 and Nos. 22 to 39 of 1982.

(3.) That the employees, who were found 'surplus', were classified into two classes, namely, 'local' and 'non-local' and that, while retaining the former, the services of the latter were terminated, would also appear from the relevant portions of the Affidavits filed by the respondents. In the advertisements issued for the posts to which the petitioners were appointed, it was stated, as would appear from the copy of one such advertisement being Annexure D-1 to this Writ Petition, that "preference will be given to the local candidates, whose name/parents, name have been included in the relevant Sikkim Government Register". The Respondents No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 in paragraph 15 of their Affidavit in Reply, while referring to and relying on this portion of Annexure D-1, quoted above, have stated further that "under the laws in force, candidates from outside cannot: be directly recruited in case local candidates are available for such works". In paragraph 5 of the Supplementary Affidavit-in-Opposition filed on behalf of the Respondents No. 2 and No. 4 it is also averred that "all these employees were purely on temporary basis and as per terms of appointment they were entitled to one month's notice and as the department itself was created only for the purpose of surveying the agricultural lands in Sikkim, their services were terminated and the services of the local employees were retained till the writing of record of rights and tracing of the Block and Mauza maps were completed" and that "the Authorities retained only 'local' employees in preference to the 'non-local' employees till the balance works were completed" (underlining for emphasis). In the written argument also, filed by the learned Government Advocate Mr. N.B. Kharga, the main, and rather the sole, argument that has been advanced is that such classification of the employees in to 'local' and 'non-local' is provided for in the Sikkim Government Establishment Rules, 1974 and, therefore, there was nothing wrong in retaining the 'locals' and terminating the services of the 'non-local' during the process when the works of the department were nearing completion and the concerned department was being gradually wound up. Therefore, the short question that arises for consideration in all these 22 Writ Petitions, and on which the learned counsel for the parties have also invited me to dispose of all these Writ Petitions, may conveniently be divided under two heads, namely, (i) whether the termination of the petitioners on the basis of such classification can be justified under the relevant laws, and (2) if so, whether the relevant law are valid and constitutional.