MR. U.D. LAMA AND ORS V. THE STATE OF SIKKIM AND ORS INSC 1500

Name of Case: Mr. U.D. Lama & Ors. v. The State of Sikkim & Ors.

Facts: The Sikkim State Civil Service was established 1-7-1977 by the Sikkim State Civil Service Rules, 1977. Recruitment was done through competitive examinations and selection from persons already working in the state. However, between 1977 and 1982, no Public Service Commission was in place.

In 1981, the government resolved on a selection process of which one aspect was a written test and a viva voce test. A notification dated 16-9-1981 formalized the same process. After these tests, 29 officers joined service in December, 1982.

An unsuccessful candidate challenged this process, claiming that the recruitment was contrary to the rules and excessive delegation of authority under Rule 4(3). The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which upheld the recruitment due to the "peculiar circumstances" arising from the lack of a Public Service Commission.

The Justice D.M. Sen Committee and subsequent committees had recommended the induction of other eligible officers at the time of recruitment in 1981 who were not included at that time. This resulted in the induction of 166 officers in the service with retrospective effect. The existing officers challenged the revised seniority list.

Issues:

Could officers who failed or did not appear in the 1981 tests be inducted retrospectively into the service and their seniority adjusted? Whether retrospective induction and adjustment of seniority justified in the facts of the case?

Holding:

Yes, retrospective induction and seniority adjustment were permissible. The State Government was justified in making amends for the exclusion of eligible officers who had been barred from selection in 1981 on account of procedural irregularities in the said recruitment.

Rationale: The original recruitment process in 1981-1982 deviated from the statutory rules due to the absence of a Public Service Commission. Eligible officers who were excluded were entitled to regularization under the original rules. The state government's induction of more officers retroactively was done to rectify the injustice of the procedural flaws. The Appellants were not entitled to absolute rights for seniority, as their recruitments were test-based, not to be allowed under the rule. The modifications were made for equal treatment for all officers.

Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter for reconsideration. It directed the High Court to determine whether the writ appeal was maintainable in light of the factual disputes and the conclusions of the Single Judge. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal but did not award costs to either party.