SARADA GAUTAM Vs. SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The apple of discord herein is the entitlement to Government service, granted in lieu of land donated by the father of the Petitioner, who is the father-in-law of the Respondent No.3, with both the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 staking claim to the service, based on a Government Scheme known as 'Guidelines for appointment of Land Donors' of the State-Respondent No.2, the Human Resource and Development Department, Government of Sikkim.

(2.) The short facts leading to the dissension, is, that, one Narapati Gautam (hereinafter, the 'donor'), on 19/1/2009, donated his self acquired land, bearing plot no.257, to the State-Respondent No.2 for the establishment of 'Sripatam Sanskrit Patshala, South Sikkim'. The State-Respondent No.2 apparently issued a Scheme known as the 'Guidelines for appointment of Land Donors' (undated), on the basis of which, on 25/7/2013, the donor petitioned the Government requesting that his daughter, the Petitioner, be appointed to the post of Peon, under the Human Resource and Development Department (now Education Department) or any other Department. The personal details of the Petitioner were furnished in his Petition which inter alia mentioned that she is a bona fide Sikkimese, holder of Certificate of Identification (C.O.I), belongs to the Below Poverty Line (BPL) category, and that no one in the donor"s family was serving in the Government. Pursuant thereto, the Panchayat of the area on 12/8/2013 issued a certificate claiming to have no objection to the proposal. The School Managing Committee of Sripatam Sanskrit Patshala also certified (undated) that, a plot of land had been donated by the donor for construction of the said 'Patshala', in lieu of which he had sought appointment of the Petitioner as a Peon, which had not materialised till then. Pursuant thereto, on 31/1/2017, vide Office Order No.2153/HRDD/ADM, the Petitioner along with fourteen others were appointed as Peons in various schools, under the Human Resource Development Department, on a consolidated pay of Rs. 5,500.00 (Rupees five thousand and five hundred) only, each, per month. The Petitioner accordingly joined her place of posting on 13/2/2017. On 1/6/2017, the Respondent No.3 filed an objection before the State-Respondent No.2, complaining against the 'illegal appointment' of the Petitioner in the post of school Peon, inter alia on grounds that, despite the Petitioner having withdrawn her Petition for the post of Peon, the Petition of Respondent No.3 was rejected. On 3/6/2017, the donor filed a representation to the State-Respondent No.2 submitting therein that, his youngest daughter had been 'rightly employed' in the school, in terms of the Government Scheme and he along with his family members had issued a 'No Objection Certificate' (N.O.C), in this context. He also requested that there should be no interference in her appointment and she should not be ousted from the post. In the teeth of his representation, on 12/5/2017 the State-Respondent No.2 sought a written explanation from the Petitioner, as to why her services should not be terminated from the date of notice as per the norms of the Land Donors Scheme. On 3/6/2017, she submitted her response stating inter alia that, her brothers were employed and her father had partitioned his landed property, of which she was given no share, the employment being her share. On 1/8/2017, nevertheless, the appointment of the Petitioner came to be cancelled, with immediate effect. Hence, the instant Writ Petition inter alia praying that, the order of dismissal be set aside and Clause 4 of the Guidelines for appointment be struck down as discriminatory.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contended that Clause 4 of the said Scheme is discriminatory as it excludes married daughters from the ambit of Government employment, even when the land is donated by their father or by any other person to whom they are legal heirs. That, despite the donor, her father, having categorically nominated the Petitioner for Government service, in lieu of the land donated by him, the State-Respondent No.2 ousted the Petitioner from service based on the discriminatory scheme. That, not only is she a C.O.I holder of Sikkim but she is also married to a Sikkimese C.O.I holder. That, in light of the above circumstances, Clause 4 of the Guidelines be struck down, the order of dismissal be revoked and the Petitioner be reinstated in service with entire arrears of salary and increments as applicable during the period be paid to her.