Shri Bikash Bhattarai vs The Government of Sikkim, Through the Chief Secretary and Ors.
- Court
- High Court of Sikkim
2026:SHC:79
CNR: SKHC01 000042 2026
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM: GANGTOK
(Civil Extra-Ordinary Jurisdiction)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, CHIEF JUSTICE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W.P. (C) No. 16 of 2026
Shri Bikash Bhattarai,
Son of Shri Dilli Keshar Bhattarai,
Resident of Aritar Khamdong,
P.O. Khamdong, P.S. Singtam,
District Gangtok, Sikkim-737134. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Government of Sikkim,
Through the Chief Secretary,
Block – B, Tashiling Secretariat,
District Gangtok, Sikkim-737101.
2. District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
District Administrative Centre,
District Gangtok, Sikkim-737101.
3. The Department of Personnel,
Administrative Reforms, Training and Public Grievances,
Through the Secretary,
Government of Sikkim,
Tashiling, Secretariat,
Gangtok, Sikkim-737101.
4. The Sikkim Commission for the Backward Classes,
Government of Sikkim,
Through its Chairperson,
Old Secretariat, National Highway-10,
District Gangtok, Sikkim-737101.
5. The Chairperson,
2026:SHC:79
WP(C)/16/2026
(Shri Bikash Bhattarai vs. The Government of Sikkim, Through the Chief Secretary and Ors.)
And
WP(C)/25/2025
(Avinandan Sharma vs. State of Sikkim and Ors.)
Scrutiny Committee,
Sikkim Commission for Backward Classes,
Government of Sikkim, Gangtok-737101.
6. Smt. Pabitra Bhandari,
The Chairperson,
Scrutiny Committee,
Sikkim Commission for Backward Classes,
Government of Sikkim,
Gangtok-737101.
7. The Secretary,
Land Revenue & Disaster Management Department,
Block – B, Tashiling Secretariat,
District Gangtok, Sikkim-737101.
8. The Sikkim Public Service Commission,
Through the Secretary,
Old Tourism Complex, M. G. Marg,
Gangtok, Sikkim-737101.
9. The Horticulture Department,
Through the Secretary,
Krishi Vawan, Tadong,
District Gangtok, Sikkim-737102.
10. Shri Avinandan Sharma,
Son of Shri Bishwanath Sharma,
Resident of Lapthang Ward,
Thekabong, P.O. Pakyong,
District Pakyong, Sikkim-737106. ... Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Mr. N. Rai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Tara Devi Chettri, Mr. Yozan Rai
and Ms. Pem Lhamu Lepcha, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. Zangpo Sherpa, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Thinlay
Dorjee Bhutia, Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3, 7
and 9.
Ms. Pema Bhutia, Assistant Government Advocate for Respondent
Nos.4 and 5.
Mr. Bhusan Nepal, Advocate for Respondent No.8.
Mr. M.N. Dhungel, Advocate for Respondent No.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2 of 7
2026:SHC:79
WP(C)/16/2026
(Shri Bikash Bhattarai vs. The Government of Sikkim, Through the Chief Secretary and Ors.)
And
WP(C)/25/2025
(Avinandan Sharma vs. State of Sikkim and Ors.)
and
W.P. (C) No. 25 of 2025
Shri Avinandan Sharma,
Son of Shri Biswanath Sharma,
Lapthang Ward, Thekabong,
P.O. & P. S. Pakyong,
District Pakyong,
Sikkim-737106. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Sikkim,
Through the Chief Secretary,
Tashiling Secretariat,
Gangtok -737101.
2. The Secretary,
Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms,
Training and Public Grievances,(DOP)
Tashiling Secretariat,
P.O. & P.S. Gangtok,
Sikkim-737101.
3. The Secretary,
Sikkim Public Service Commission,
Old Tourism Complex, M. G. Marg,
P.O. & P.S. Gangtok,
Sikkim-737101.
4. The Secretary,
Agriculture Department,
Krishi Bhawan, Tadong,
Gangtok, Sikkim-737102.
5. Shri Bikash Bhattarai,
Son of Shri D. K. Bhattarai,
Resident of Aritar Ward, Simik Lingzey,
Khamdong, P. O. Dung Dung, P.S. Singtam,
District Gangtok,
Sikkim-737134. ... Respondents
Page 3 of 7
2026:SHC:79
WP(C)/16/2026
(Shri Bikash Bhattarai vs. The Government of Sikkim, Through the Chief Secretary and Ors.)
And
WP(C)/25/2025
(Avinandan Sharma vs. State of Sikkim and Ors.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Mr. M.N. Dhungel, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. Zangpo Sherpa, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Thinlay
Dorjee Bhutia, Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4.
Mr. Bhusan Nepal, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
Mr. N. Rai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Tara Devi Chettri, Mr. Yozan Rai
and Ms. Pem Lhamu Lepcha, Advocates for Respondent No.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing : 09.07.2026
Date of Judgment : 09.07.2026
Date on which uploaded : 14.07.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
(A. Muhamed Mustaque, C.J.)
This litigation is partly contributed to by the Petitioner, Mr.
Bikash Bhattarai and partly by the Sikkim Public Service Commission
(SPSC).
2. The Petitioner claimed that he belongs to the OBC Central List
(CL), and applied for the post of Horticulture Development Officer
(HDO), bearing Rank No.7. There were a total 15 vacancies for the
said post. At the time of scrutiny, instead of producing a community
certificate showing that he belongs to the OBC (CL), he produced an
OBC State List (SL) certificate. The SPSC, by overlooking his
application, accepted that community certificate and appointed him
against the quota reserved for the OBC State List. The learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that it was
based on the advice given by the authorities concerned in this
regard. Apparently, this Court cannot accept the said argument.
Once an application is submitted and the cut-off date has expired,
Page 4 of 7
2026:SHC:79
WP(C)/16/2026
(Shri Bikash Bhattarai vs. The Government of Sikkim, Through the Chief Secretary and Ors.)
And
WP(C)/25/2025
(Avinandan Sharma vs. State of Sikkim and Ors.)
both the Petitioner and the SPSC are bound by the details furnished
in the application unless any procedure allows for correction or
rectification at a later stage.
3. Respondent No.10 in Writ Petition No.16 of 2026, who is a writ
petitioner in WP(C) No.25 of 2025, appears to have lodged a
complaint before the State Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny
Committee became oblivious to its role in the matter. The mandate
of the Scrutiny Committee is to determine the caste status of the
person concerned. Instead of embarking upon an inquiry into the
caste status, it embarked upon an inquiry into the manner in which
the certificate was obtained by the Petitioner. No inquiry was
conducted regarding the caste status of the Petitioner in WP(C)
No.16 of 2026. On this ground alone, the order passed by the
Scrutiny Committee is liable to be set aside.
4. The Scrutiny Committee should be reminded of its role. Its
role is to determine the caste status of the person concerned and
make a recommendation to the appropriate authority regarding such
caste status. It is on the basis of the report/recommendation of the
Scrutiny Committee that the employer or the SPSC may act.
5. The Scrutiny Committee has no responsibility to conduct an
inquiry into the fraudulent manner in which the certificate was
produced before the SPSC. It is for the SPSC to act upon the said
report/recommendation and take an appropriate decision
accordingly. However, since there was no determination regarding
the caste status of the Petitioner, the decision of the Scrutiny
Committee dated 16.10.2025 in WP(C) No.16 of 2026 is liable to be
set aside and is accordingly set aside.
Page 5 of 7
2026:SHC:79
WP(C)/16/2026
(Shri Bikash Bhattarai vs. The Government of Sikkim, Through the Chief Secretary and Ors.)
And
WP(C)/25/2025
(Avinandan Sharma vs. State of Sikkim and Ors.)
6. The next question is whether the Petitioner can claim
reservation under the OBC (SL). Whether he belongs to the OBC
(SL) or the OBC (CL) is a contentious issue. This Court cannot
decide that issue at this stage. However, as is evident from the
pleading and the documents produced before this Court by the
Sikkim Public Service Commission, the Petitioner had applied under
the OBC (CL). This means that he cannot claim reservation under
the OBC (SL). If he belongs to the OBC (SL), it is open to him to
apply under the OBC (SL) pursuant to any future notification.
7. Then comes the core issue, i.e. whether the termination of the
Petitioner is justified or not. The Petitioner was appointed under the
OBC (SL), which is reserved exclusively for candidates belonging to
the OBC (SL). He cannot claim appointment since he had not applied
under the OBC (SL). Therefore, the termination order dated
06.03.2026 is justified.
8. If Respondent No.10, Avinandan Sharma, is the appropriate
candidate as per the rank list published by the SPSC, the SPSC is at
liberty to appoint Respondent No.10.
9. If that be the case, the writ petition filed by Respondent No.10
i.e. WP(C) No.25 of 2025 ( Avinandan Sharma vs. State of Sikkim
and Ors. ), has to be allowed. His appointment in place of the writ
petitioner in WP(C) No.16 of 2026 ( Shri Bikash Bhattarai vs. The
Government of Sikkim, Through the Chief Secretary and Ors. ) shall
be considered.
10. This Court understands that there is a possibility that the
Petitioner could stake claim under the general merit quota based on
his rank. It is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General
Page 6 of 7
2026:SHC:79
WP(C)/16/2026
(Shri Bikash Bhattarai vs. The Government of Sikkim, Through the Chief Secretary and Ors.)
And
WP(C)/25/2025
(Avinandan Sharma vs. State of Sikkim and Ors.)
that the Petitioner will be considered for any future vacancy likely to
arise.
11. It is to be noted that, in such circumstances, it would be
appropriate to pass the following order:
(i) The State shall consider accommodating the Petitioner against
any future vacancy likely to arise. The same shall be done within
two months.
(ii) If no future vacancy arises within two months, the petitioner
shall be appointed by creating a supernumerary post, and the said
post shall be regularised against the next available substantive
vacancy that may arise in future.
12. This is in order to protect those who are already in service and
to avoid further litigation in the matter.
13. Accordingly, WP(C) No.16 of 2026 and WP(C) No.25 of
2025 , stands disposed of on above terms.
Digitally signed
by Justice A
Muhamed
Mustaque
Date: 2026.07.14
13:35:44 +05'30'
Justice A
Muhamed
Mustaque
Chief Justice
Approved for Reporting: Yes/No
ami
Page 7 of 7