Anirudh Gupta and Ors. vs The Stat e of Sikkim and Ors.
- Court
- High Court of Sikkim
COURT NO.1
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
Record of Proceedings
CNR No. SKHC01-000019-2025
CNR No. SKHC010002772026
WP(C) No.88 of 2026
ANIRUDH GUPTA AND OTHERS PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS RESPONDENT(S)
For Petitioner(s) : Petitioners in person.
For Respondent(s)
R-1 to R-3 : Mr. Zangpo Sherpa, Additional Advocate
General with Mr. Thinlay Dorjee Bhutia,
Government Advocate.
R-4 : None.
Date :04/11/2026
CORAM
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, CHIEF JUSTICE
FINAL ORDER
The Learned Additional Advocate General with Learned Government
Advocate entered appearance on behalf of the State-Respondents on
advance notice.
This writ petition was filed by the lawyers, who claim that they are
practicing in the High Court and other District Courts of Sikkim, have
sought an interim relief and stay challenging an Employment Notification
issued by this Court on the Administrative side on 17.09.2026. The
Employment Notice is in fact the invitation for the eligible candidates to fill
up five vacant posts in the entry level of the Sikkim Judicial Service under
the Sikkim Judicial Service Rules, 1975. The eligibility conditions as
prescribed in the Notification is as follows:
(a) Candidate must be a citizen of India, in possession
of a Certificate of Identification and a valid Local
Employment Card.
(b) Should not be more than 35 years of age, as on
the last date fixed for submission of applications.
(c) Must be a holder of a degree in law, granted by a
University established by law in India.
(d) Must be able to communicate in Nepali, or any
other language of the State.
Page 1 of 4
COURT NO.1
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
Record of Proceedings
CNR No. SKHC01-000019-2025
(e) Must have adequate knowledge in Computer
applications, which will be tested at the time of
viva-voce.
The last date to receive applications was on 30.10.2026. The writ
petition was filed on 28.10.2026 and the IA No.01 of 2026, which is an
application for interim relief and stay, was filed on 31.10.2026. The case is
listed today, i.e., 04.11.2026, due to the delay in curing the defects by the
Petitioners.
Learned Petitioners in person, who are the lawyers of this Court,
have raised two points before this Court. One is, the Constitutional validity
of the prescription of eligibility that one should possess Certificate of
Identification (COI) and a valid local employment card. Second, is the
Notification contrary to the Apex Court’s judgment in Bhumika Trust vs.
1
Union of India and Others which mandates one year experience be insisted
for applying for the recruitment notice.
Learned Additional Advocate General also relied on paragraph 23 of
the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kerala Public Service Commission
2
vs. K.N. Radhamani & Ors. .
“ 23. So far as Civil Appeal Nos. 2822 and 2823 of 2010 are
concerned, we do not find any error in the judgment [T.N.
Sadasivan v. State of Kerala, 2008 SCC OnLine Ker 760] of the High Court in
rejecting the writ petition on the ground of delay. In disputes
related to service, particularly in the field of recruitment, fate of
a large number of candidates are involved. An aspirant for the
posts advertised has to demonstrate promptitude in approaching
the Court if in his perception, the eligibility criteria is fixed
beyond that stipulated by law. Delayed arrival of a candidate in
the judicial forum can have chaotic consequences if decisions
taken on the basis of the disputed eligibility criteria are required
to be upset much after the selection process is over. The High
Court has rightly exercised its discretion in dismissing the said
two writ petitions. We dismiss both the appeals. ”
The question at this stage is whether, this Court should entertain this
writ petition. The last date for application is already over. The Employment
Notice does not indicate that it is in violation or derogation of the Apex
Court’s judgment. None of these Petitioners had applied for the said post
1
2026 SCC OnLine SC 956
2
(2021) 15 SCC 501.
Page 2 of 4
COURT NO.1
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
Record of Proceedings
CNR No. SKHC01-000019-2025
nor have the applications been rejected. They now seek an interim
direction for permission to apply for the said posts.
At this stage, this cannot be entertained only for the simple reason
that the last date is already over.
The non-mentioning of the prescription of one year minimum practice
does not mean that the Petitioners have been prevented from applying for
the said posts. The Notification came on 17.09.2026. The Petitioners chose
to file the litigation just immediately before the last date of application and
they have not even meant to bring up this case before the last day. If the
Petitioners’ applications cannot be entertained beyond the last date, the
consideration of the challenge does not arise.
In service matters, one should have a locus standi , which means in
this context one should be in a position to apply. For the reason that the
last date is over, they cannot apply. That means, they do not have a locus
standi and this writ petition cannot be converted into a Public Interest
Litigation (PIL). The Apex Court, in its plethora of judgments have said that
in the service matters, the PIL cannot be entertained. That does not mean
that the question raised by the Petitioners need not be considered. That
can be considered at the appropriate stage when the Petitioners applies or
intends to apply before the deadline.
Therefore, the larger question raised in this matter, i.e., challenging
the validity of the COI in this present matter, will have to be decided at an
appropriate stage.
Since none of the Petitioners have applied for the said posts and also
they have not raised that their applications have been returned or rejected
for want of eligibility, they cannot say that the directions of the Apex Court
are not followed.
Anyway, as the Petitioners have not chosen to apply for the said
posts and also they had not attempted to bring this case before this Court,
Page 3 of 4
COURT NO.1
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
Record of Proceedings
CNR No. SKHC01-000019-2025
before the last date of application, the case cannot be entertained and is
accordingly dismissed in limine .
It is made clear that the question raised in this writ petition is left
open.
The writ petition stands dismissed in limine .
Chief Justice
ds/ami/arc
Page 4 of 4