SHRADDHA Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. B. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. J.K. Kharka, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J.B. Pradhan, learned Additional Advocate General, Sikkim with Mr. S.K. Chettri, learned State Counsel representing official respondents as well as Mr. A.K. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Tewari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2/High Court of Sikkim.

(2.) THE two fundamental questions which have been agitated in this writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are as to (i) whether the reasons and grounds put forward by the State Government/respondents in expressing its inability to accept the recommendation of the Full Court of the High Court of Sikkim (hereinafter referred to as 'High Court') for the appointment of one Judicial Officer under Sikkim Judicial Service (for short, 'SJS') are correct, reasonable, justified and tenable in law; and (ii) whether the concurrence given by the Hon'ble the then Chief Justice of the High Court alone instead of the High Court with the views of the State Government/respondents not to accept the recommendation of the Full Court of the High Court, is permissible under the law.

(3.) THE High Court through its Registrar General published an advertisement on 14.09.2006 in a local English Daily Newspaper "Sikkim Express" inviting applications to fill up one post of Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate (1st Class) in the cadre of SJS in the (Grade III) so as to reach the Office of the Registrar General not later than 26.09.2006 by 4.00 PM. The advertisement is extracted hereunder: