Locus Standi In Service Matters Requires Being In A Position To Apply For Post: Sikkim High Court Dismisses Challenge To Judicial Recruitment
The Court held that the petition cannot be converted into a PIL as PILs are not entertained in service matters, and found that the absence of a one-year practice condition under Bhumika Trust did not prevent the petitioners from applying.
Chief Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque, Sikkim High Court
The Sikkim High Court has held that in service matters, locus standi means being in a position to apply for the post. Persons who did not apply before the last date for applications therefore have no locus to challenge the eligibility conditions. It added that such a writ petition cannot be converted into a Public Interest Litigation, since PILs are not entertained in service matters.
The Court dismissed in limine a writ petition by advocates practising in Sikkim. They had challenged the Employment Notification of September 17, 2026 inviting applications for five entry-level posts in the Sikkim Judicial Service. The Court made it clear that the questions raised, including the validity of the Certificate of Identification (COI) requirement, are left open to be decided at an appropriate stage.
A Single Bench of Chief Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque observed, “In service matters, one should have a locus standi, which means in this context one should be in a position to apply. For the reason that the last date is over, they cannot apply. That means, they do not have a locus standi and this writ petition cannot be converted into a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The Apex Court, in its plethora of judgments have said that in the service matters, the PIL cannot be entertained. That does not mean that the question raised by the Petitioners need not be considered. That can be considered at the appropriate stage when the Petitioners applies or intends to apply before the deadline”.
The petitioners appeared in person while Zangpo Sherpa, Additional Advocate General, appeared for the respondent.
“The non-mentioning of the prescription of one year minimum practice does not mean that the Petitioners have been prevented from applying for the said posts. The Notification came on 17.09.2026. The Petitioners chose to file the litigation just immediately before the last date of application and they have not even meant to bring up this case before the last day. If the Petitioners’ applications cannot be entertained beyond the last date, the consideration of the challenge does not arise”, the Bench noted further.
The notification, issued on the administrative side under the Sikkim Judicial Service Rules, 1975, required candidates to hold a Certificate of Identification and a valid Local Employment Card. Candidates also had to be not more than 35 years of age, hold a law degree, be able to communicate in Nepali or another language of the State, and have adequate knowledge of computer applications. The last date for applications was October 30, 2026.
The petitioners filed the writ petition on October 28, 2026 and an application for interim relief and stay on October 31, 2026. The matter was listed on November 4, 2026 because of delay in curing defects. Appearing in person, the petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the COI and Local Employment Card requirement. They also contended that the notification was contrary to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bhumika Trust v. Union of India, which mandates one year of experience. They sought an interim direction permitting them to apply. The Additional Advocate General relied on Kerala Public Service Commission v. K.N. Radhamani, which held that candidates must approach the Court promptly in recruitment disputes.
The Court noted that none of the petitioners had applied, nor had any application been rejected for want of eligibility. It held that the absence of a one-year practice condition did not prevent them from applying. It observed that the petitioners filed the litigation just before the last date and did not try to have it heard before then. Since applications could not be entertained after the last date, it held that consideration of the challenge did not arise. As no petitioner had applied or been rejected, they also could not claim that the Supreme Court’s directions had not been followed.
Cause Title: Anirudh Gupta & Ors. v. State of Sikkim & Ors. (WP(C) No. 88 of 2026)
Appearances:
Petitioners: In person
Respondent: Additional Advocate General Zangpo Sherpa, with Government Advocate Thinlay Dorjee Bhutia.