Sikkim HC Dismisses Lawyers’ Judicial-Service Recruitment Challenge After None Applied By Deadline, Leaving COI Validity Open

The petitioners, practising lawyers, challenged an employment notice issued by the High Court on the administrative side on 17 September 2026, inviting applications for five entry-level posts in the Sikkim Judicial Service.

The notice required, among other qualifications, a Certificate of Identification (COI) and a valid local employment card, but did not prescribe one year of legal practice.

The petitioners questioned the COI requirement’s constitutional validity and alleged that the notice was inconsistent with *Bhumika Trust v. Union of India*, said to require one year’s experience.

The application deadline was 30 October 2026. The petition was filed on 28 October, but the interim-relief application was filed on 31 October; the matter came before the Court on 4 November. None of the petitioners had applied for the posts.

Under the Sikkim Judicial Service Rules, 1975, recruitment to the entry-level posts was governed by the applicable eligibility conditions in the employment notice.

Relying on *Kerala Public Service Commission v. K.N. Radhamani*, (2021) 15 SCC 501, para 23, the Court noted that challenges to recruitment criteria must be brought promptly because delayed litigation may disrupt a selection process involving many candidates.

The Court also stated that, in service matters, a petitioner must have standing—described in this context as being in a position to apply—and that the petition could not be converted into a PIL; it noted that PILs are not entertainable in service matters.

The petitioners’ reliance on *Bhumika Trust v. Union of India*, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 956, was recorded, but the Court did not decide its applicability to the notice.

The Court considered the application deadline decisive at the interim stage: it had passed before the matter was heard, and none of the petitioners had applied or had an application rejected.

It held that the petitioners therefore could not seek permission to apply after the deadline or establish standing in the circumstances presented.

The petition had also been brought immediately before the deadline and was not placed before the Court in time for consideration before it expired.

Applying the promptness principle in *Radhamani*, the Court declined to entertain the challenge and left the substantive questions—including the validity of the COI requirement and the alleged experience requirement—for an appropriate case.

It expressly left the questions raised in the petition open for determination at an appropriate stage.