Ms. Sweta Chettri And Ors. vs High Court Of Sikkim And Ors

A. Muhamed Mustaque, CJ

Admit.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

All the Respondents have entered appearance on advance notice and waive formal service of notice.

This matter relates to a challenge to the full court decision of this Court resolving to terminate the service of the Petitioners.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner presses for an interim order in regard to all the Petitioners.

It is submitted that the service of the Petitioner No. 1 is scheduled to be terminated w.e.f. 12.06.2026, while the service of the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 w.e.f. 15.06.2026.

In regard to the Petitioner No. 1, the impugned order indicates that she was selected in violation of Rule 6(c) of the High Court of Sikkim (Recruitment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1998. Rule 6(c) mandates that there shall be a competitive examination for any appointment by direct recruitment.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that Petitioner No. 1 was selected based on an interview. It is noted from the impugned order that there was no written examination. Apart from that, it is mentioned in the impugned order that no financial sanction was obtained from the Government for creation of the post before making the appointment.

It is also discernible from the records that these posts were created without prescribing qualifications, and advertisement was issued matching the qualifications of the first Petitioner raising clear room for suspicion that extraneous considerations prevailed. Further, it is noticed that on the same day of creation of the post, an employment notice inviting applications was issued, i.e., on 05/12/2024. It is also noticeable from the records of the first Petitioner that the probation period was declared in undue haste within 9 months, as against the prescribed one year under the Rules. These facts prima facie indicate that the first Petitioner was appointed for extraneous reasons and is not entitled to any interim protection to continue in service.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that, in regard to Petitioner No. 2, no reasoned order has been produced. It is necessary to ascertain from the learned Standing Counsel for the High Court of Sikkim whether any reasoned order has been passed in like manner as that issued to the Petitioner No. 3.

As seen from the impugned order with regard to Petitioner No. 3, the only reasons mentioned therein are that no financial sanction had been obtained and that extraneous consideration influenced the making of the appointments. There is a legal question to be addressed in the matter. Even if no prior financial sanction was obtained, whether the post was required, and if so, whether the Government can grant ex post facto sanction. These questions require consideration.

Considering the fact that no order in respect of Petitioner No. 2 has been produced, it is appropriate to adjourn the matter for hearing of the interim application on Monday, i.e. 15.06.2026.

Learned Standing Counsel for the High Court of Sikkim shall make available the reasoned order passed in respect of Petitioner No. 2.

However, this Court finds that no prima facie case is made out by the first Petitioner to continue in the service and declines interim relief sought in respect of Petitioner No. 1 and shall consider passing an interim order in respect of Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3.

However, if Petitioner No.1 is terminated, such termination shall be subject to the final outcome of this writ petition.

The matter is adjourned to Monday.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners is directed to serve proper copy of the writ petition to all the Respondents.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners is directed to cure the defect(s), as pointed out by the Registry, before next posting.

Stand over to 15th June, 2026.