1994 (4) TMI 383 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. True scope and meaning of Rule 4(4) of the Sikkim Government Establishment Rules, 1974.
2. Validity of termination of employment based on classification as 'locals' and 'non-locals'.
3. Applicability of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution to the Sikkim Government Establishment Rules, 1974.
4. Impact of Article 371-F on the continuation and validity of pre-existing laws in Sikkim post-merger with India.

Summary:

1. True Scope and Meaning of Rule 4(4):
The Supreme Court examined the scope and meaning of Rule 4(4) of the Sikkim Government Establishment Rules, 1974, which provided for appointments through direct recruitment or promotion, including contract and deputation appointments. The proviso emphasized that non-Sikkimese nationals could be appointed only if qualified Sikkimese nationals were unavailable, and such appointees should be replaced by Sikkimese candidates when available.

2. Validity of Termination Based on 'Locals' and 'Non-Locals':
The respondents' services were terminated on the grounds of being 'non-locals', which was challenged in the High Court. The High Court ruled that the classification of employees based on 'locals' and 'non-locals' was impermissible under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as Sikkimese nationality ceased to exist as a legal concept post-1975. The Supreme Court, however, found this approach too technical and held that the terms 'Sikkimese nationals' and 'non-Sikkimese nationals' should be understood in the context of the Sikkim Subjects Regulations, 1961.

3. Applicability of Articles 14, 15, and 16:
Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution prohibit discrimination and ensure equality of opportunity in public employment. The Supreme Court noted that while Article 14 allows for classification based on intelligible differentia, such classification must not be arbitrary. The Court held that the preference given to 'Sikkimese nationals' under Rule 4(4) did not violate these constitutional provisions, as it was protected by Article 371-F.

4. Impact of Article 371-F:
Article 371-F, introduced by the 36th Amendment, provided special provisions for the State of Sikkim, including the continuation of existing laws until amended or repealed. The Supreme Court held that the Establishment Rules of 1974, being existing laws, continued to be in force post-merger. The Court emphasized that Article 371-F(k) protected these rules from being assailed as unconstitutional, even if they conflicted with other constitutional provisions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's decision was unsustainable. The termination of services based on the classification of 'locals' and 'non-locals' was justified under the existing laws protected by Article 371-F. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside. The writ petitions filed in the High Court were dismissed, with no order as to costs.