[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Sikkim High Court
Gyanandra Chettri vs State Of Sikkim on 10 December, 2025
Author: Meenakshi Madan Rai
Bench: Meenakshi Madan Rai
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Civil Extraordinary Jurisdiction)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH : THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WP(C) No.79 of 2025
Petitioner : Gyanandra Chettri
versus
Respondents : State of Sikkim and Another
Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Mr. Rahul Rathi, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. Pema Bhutia, Assistant Government Advocate for the
Respondent No.1.
Mr. Aarohi Bhalla, Advocate with Mr. Bhusan Nepal, Advocate for the
Respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing : 10-12-2025
Judgment pronounced : 10-12-2025
Judgment uploaded : 11-12-2025
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1. The prayers in the instant Writ Petition inter alia are as
follows;
"(a) ..................................................................
(b) Issue an appropriate writ, order/direction declaring the
action of the Respondent No.2 in not considering the no objection
certificate submitted by the Petitioner till production of discharge
book and ex-servicemen card is illegal, arbitrary and unjust;
(c) Issue an appropriate writ, order/direction upon the
Respondent No.2 to consider the no objection certificate submitted
by the Petitioner till the production of discharge book and ex-
servicemen card which may be obtained by the Petitioner on the
date of his retirement;
(d) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ
quashing the notice bearing no.55/SPSC/EXAM/2025, dated 20-09-
2025 as the same cannot override the initial notice bearing
reference no.82/EXAM/SPSC/2025, dated 26-11-2025 which was
advertised for filling up the vacancy and the initial notice did not
state anything about the requirement of discharge book and ex-
Gyanandra Chettri vs. State of Sikkim and Another 2
servicemen card and as such the notice bearing reference no.
55/SPSC/EXAM/2025, dated 20-09-2025 is illegal and unlawful;
(e) Pass an ad-interim order directing the Respondent No.2 not
fill in the position of the said one post of Sub Inspector reserved
for Ex-servicemen OBC(SL) in which the Petitioner have (sic)
already qualified till the pendency of the instant writ petition;
(f) .................................................................."
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
consequent upon the advertisement bearing No.14/SPSC/EXAM/
2025, dated 20-05-2025, issued by the Sikkim Public Service
Commission (SPSC), Respondent No.2, inviting applications from
eligible local candidates for filling up of thirty-nine (39) posts of
Sub-Inspector, the Petitioner applied thereto, in the reserved
category for "Ex-Servicemen (ESM) Other Backward Classes (OBC)
State List (SL)". The Preliminary Examination was conducted on
21-09-2025 in which the Petitioner was permitted to take the
examination. It is clarified by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner
that vide a Notice dated 20-09-2025 the Petitioner was to submit
his documents, viz., Discharge Book, Ex-Servicemen (ESM) ID
Card. The requirement of these documents was made known to
the candidate only on 20-09-2025, i.e., one day before the
Petitioner was permitted to and appeared for the Preliminary
Examination on 21-09-2025, after scrutiny of the documents. On
24-09-2025 the Petitioner appeared before the Respondent No.2
for scrutiny of his documents in terms of the Notice dated 20-09-
2025. On 26-09-2025, the results of the Preliminary Examination
was declared by the Respondent No.2, wherein the Petitioner
qualified. The requisite Physical Endurance Test (PET) was held on
14-10-2025 in which the Petitioner was again successful as evident
from the result published on 17-10-2025. On 08-11-2025 and 09-
Gyanandra Chettri vs. State of Sikkim and Another 3
11-2025 the Petitioner took the final examination for the
advertised post. On 26-11-2025, the final examination results
were declared. The Petitioner had successfully cleared the
examination and his name appeared in the Merit List. After such
declaration, the Respondent No.2 required the Petitioner to appear
for scrutinising the documents in terms of the Employment
Advertisement dated 20-05-2025 (supra). On 29-11-2025, the
Petitioner was requested verbally by the Respondent No.2 to
produce the Discharge Book, Ex-Servicemen (ESM) ID Card. In
compliance thereto, the relevant documents were submitted by the
Petitioner. On scrutiny, the Respondent No.2 informed him that he
was not eligible for the said post in view of the said documents.
Aggrieved, the Petitioner on 01-12-2025 submitted a
representation to the SPSC Chairman stating that the Discharge
Book and Ex-Servicemen (ESM) ID Card would be issued only after
retirement but that he had been issued a "No Objection Certificate"
(NOC) from the Indian Navy enabling him to take the examination,
which had been accepted and considered by the Respondent No.2.
The Petitioner requested that he be allowed to produce the same
after his date of retirement, i.e., 31-01-2026. It is the specific
submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that vide the
Notice, Reference No.82/EXAM/SPSC/2025, dated 26-11-2025, the
Petitioner was declared qualified in order of merit and his name
appeared in the list of qualified candidates at Sl. No.37 against Roll
No.259. After the Petitioner was permitted to appear for three
stages of examinations, the Respondent No.2 cannot after
scrutinising the documents which were also sought for rather
belatedly, declare the Petitioner to be ineligible for the advertised
post. Hence, the prayers in the Writ Petition.
Gyanandra Chettri vs. State of Sikkim and Another 4
3. Per contra, it was submitted by Learned Counsel
appearing for the Respondent No.2 that the Petitioner was not in
the first instance eligible to apply for the said post in view of the
fact that he was not an Ex-Servicemen (ESM). The NOC submitted
by the Petitioner clearly specifies that he is eligible to take up civil
employment after 31-01-2026 which is the date on which he is due
to be released from the Indian Navy. That, the Certificate also
reflects that the Office had no objection to the registration of the
sailor's name with the Employment Exchange but does not reflect
any permission for him to apply for any civil employment at that
stage.
4. Learned Assistant Government Advocate for the
Respondent No.1 had no submissions to advance.
5. I have heard the rival contentions advanced by Learned
Counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and all
documents relied on by the Petitioner.
6. Before embarking on a discussion on the merits of the
matter it would be apposite to record here that, on 08-12-2025
this Court had directed the Respondent No.2 to take steps with
regard to the representation filed by the Petitioner and reach a
determination on the representation. Today, it is submitted by
Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 that the contentions
raised in the representation have been duly examined and on
consideration of all facts and circumstances, it has been rejected
by the Respondent No.2.
7. Having given due consideration to the rival contentions,
it is indeed a rather unfortunate situation that the Petitioner finds
himself at this juncture, however, I cannot refrain from observing
that in the first instance he was not eligible to have even applied
Gyanandra Chettri vs. State of Sikkim and Another 5
for the post. The Advertisement dated 20-05-2025 of the
Respondent No.2 specifies inter alia that reservation exists for the
posts advertised, for "Sports Persons, Artisans of Excellence
(SPAE) or Ex-Servicemen (ESM)". In my considered view and
understanding, the Petitioner was not an Ex-Servicemen (ESM)
when he applied for the post. The NOC submitted by him clearly
specifies inter alia that "............... This is to certify that Name
:GYANANDRA CHETTRI, Rank PO M, No.226254 R is due to be
released from the Indian Navy on 31-01-2026. He is eligible to take
up civil employment after this date. ............". It is clear that at the
time of the Advertisement he was still in service and was
consequently, on pain of repetition, not eligible to apply for the
advertised posts as an Ex-Servicemen (ESM). Although Learned
Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argued that Notification of
the Government of India, dated 27-10-1986, defines an Ex-
Servicemen, these Rules, I find, would not be applicable to the
facts and circumstances of the instant case as the very name of
the Rule suggests, i.e., Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central
Civil Services and Posts) Amendment Rules, 1986. In any event,
even this Rule defines Ex-Servicemen as follows;
"2. ...........................................................................
(c)
'Ex-servicemen' means a person, who
has served in any rank (whether as a
combatant or as a non-combatant) in the
Regular Army, Navy and Air Force of the
Indian Union but does not include a
person who has served in the Defence
Security Corps, the General Reserve
Engineering Force, the Lok Sahayak
Sena and the Para Military Forces; and"
............................................................................................."
The term "Ex-Servicemen" therefore applies to a person who has
"served" in the various Armed Forces and is not a person who is
still serving therein. Thus, the Petitioner being in service still and
Gyanandra Chettri vs. State of Sikkim and Another 6
due to retire only on 31-01-2026, by no stretch of the imagination
falls within the ambit of the definition.
(i) It was also argued by Learned Counsel for the
Petitioner that Rule 22 of the "Manual for the Sikkim Public Service
Commission, 2018," does not detail any scrutiny after the
applications are received. Regardless of such Rules, this Court
finds that the documents filed by the Petitioner indicates that on
20-09-2025, vide Notice No.55/SPSC/EXAM/2025, it has been
clearly specified inter alia that the scrutiny of credentials of all
candidates applying under the category of Sports Persons &
Artisans of Excellence & Ex Servicemen for the post of Sub
Inspector, Sikkim Police as advertised vide Advertisement
No.14/SPSC/EXAM/2025 Issued Date: 20/05/2025 is hereby
scheduled in the Office of the Commission on 24/09/2025 (from
11:00 am onwards).
(ii) Over and above, the Paragraph (supra), it has also
been specified inter alia that admission to all the stages of
examination for which candidates are admitted by the Commission
viz. Written Examination and scrutiny of documents shall be purely
provisional subject to their satisfying the prescribed eligibility
conditions. If on verification at any point of time, before or after
the Written Examination and scrutiny of document, it is found that
they do not fulfil any of the eligibility conditions; their candidature
for the examination/post will be summarily rejected by the
Commission. This Notice has not been assailed.
(iii) In fact, on perusing the documents filed on by the
Petitioner, I find that vide Notice bearing No. No.47/SPSC/EXAM/
2025, dated 14-08-2025, it has been clarified that admission to all
the stages of examination for which candidates are admitted by the
Gyanandra Chettri vs. State of Sikkim and Another 7
Commission shall be "purely provisional", subject to their satisfying
the prescribed eligibility conditions. More importantly, the Notice
reflects that, if on verification at any point of time before or after
the Written Examination, Physical Endurance Test and scrutiny of
documents, it is found that they do not fulfil any of the eligibility
conditions, their candidature for the examination/post will be
summarily rejected by the Commission. This Notice too is
unassailed.
8. In light of all the facts and circumstances and
documents discussed hereinabove as also the conditions spelt out
therein, I am of the considered view that the Petitioner was at the
time of the Advertisement not eligible to apply for the post in the
reserved category of Ex-Servicemen (ESM) for the simple reason
that he was not an Ex-Servicemen. He was in service. Merely
because he would retire on 31-01-2026 that contingency would not
render him eligible to apply for the posts advertised and in the said
quota. The NOC issued by the concerned Authority where he was
employed also permits him to take up civil employment after the
date of retirement. Although it was claimed by the Petitioner that
the error committed by the Respondent No.2 ought not to work in
their favour by the same reasoning, the error of making an
application by the Petitioner in a quota for which he was ineligible
at that juncture cannot work in his favour.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition deserves to
be and is accordingly dismissed.
10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
( Meenakshi Madan Rai )
Judge
10-12-2025
ds/sdl Approved for reporting : Yes
