(1.) The Petitioner, an "Architect" by profession has preferred the present Writ Petition challenging the selection of Respondent No. 4 for the post of "Assistant Architect" by the Respondent No. 2 (Sikkim Public Service Commission) on the ground that at the time of selection of the Respondent No. 4 to the post of "Assistant Architect" she was not a registered "Architect" under the Architect's Act, 1972 and therefore, ought not to have been selected by the Respondent No.2.
(2.) The factual matrix of the present dispute lies in a narrow compass. The Petitioner graduated in the Bachelor of Architecture in the year 2014. The Respondent No. 4 graduated in the Bachelor of Architecture with a First Class in the year 2015. The Petitioner registered herself as an "Architect" with the Respondent No. 3 (Council of Architecture) and possesses a valid certificate of registration effective from 20.06.2016. The Respondent No.4 applied for registration with the Respondent No.3 on 15.12.2016 and was duly registered vide registration No. AC/2016/60614 on 31.12.2016 six months after the Petitioner.
(3.) It is an admitted position that the Architects Act, 1972 has not been enforced in Sikkim. It is the categorical submission of the State of Sikkim (Respondent No.1) that it is so. Article 371 F of the Constitution of India is a special provision with respect to the State of Sikkim. Article 371 F (n) provides:
ABOUT US "REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD." is a Company incorporated in 1991 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Since its inception to 1995, the Company was busy in carrying out the activities related to various Banks' Job Work..
Read More
Sales: sales@the-laws.com
Support: info@the-laws.com
8000853936
9376168072
27, 4TH FLOOR, Agrawal Center, Ashram Road, Income Tax, Ahmadabad 380014.
LOGIN