JIT BAHADUR LIMBOO Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to our earlier order dtd. 11/4/2023, respondents no.3 to 6 have been duly served.

(2.) The issue before this Court in the instant Public Interest Litigation centres around the appointment of private respondent no.6 as the Officer on Special Duty (OSD) to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Sikkim, in contravention to the provisions as contained under the Sikkim Public Services Act, 2006, particularly, Sec. 3 thereof. It is the specific case of the petitioner that at the time of being engaged as the Officer on Special Duty (OSD) to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Sikkim, the private respondent no.6, namely, Sunil Saraogi, was practicing as an Advocate, being registered with the Bar Council of West Bengal. As such, he could not have been engaged as an Officer on Special Duty (OSD) to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Sikkim, under the provisions of the Sikkim Public Services Act, 2006, while he practiced law and remained registered as an Advocate under the Bar Council of West Bengal. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that even while holding the post of Officer on Special Duty (OSD), the private respondent no.6 was appointed as the Executive Chairman and Director of a public company substantially owned by the Government of Sikkim, namely, Teesta Urja Ltd. This appointment, also, is contrary to the relevant provisions as contained in the Sikkim State Public Services Act, 2006.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General representing the Government of Sikkim that at the time of the appointment of private respondent no.6 as the Officer on Special Duty (OSD) to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Sikkim, the State Government may not have been aware of the fact that he was a practicing lawyer, being registered as an Advocate under the Bar Council of West Bengal.