Jina Manger and Ors. vs State of Sikkim and ors.
Party Details
- Jina Manger and Ors.
- Sushma Subba
- Suryata Rai
- Shiva Lall Gautam
- Bhuwani Shankar Bastola
- Deepa Pradhan
- Radha Shyam Sharma
- Dhurba Khanal
- Jaya Pradhan
- Mandira Rai
- Homraj Katwal Chettri
- Khoma Khatiwada
- Sanjay Rai
- Kala Gurung
- Uma Devi Chettri
- Lila Sharma
- Saraswati Thapa
- Martha Lepcha
- Dhan Kumari Pradhan
- Binita Rai
- Deepika Pradhan
- Mamita Chettri
- Pem Cheden Bhutia
- Meena Kumari Dahal
- Kala Parsain
- Sushan Tamang
- Laxmi Gurung
- Bhola Nath Sharma
- Ambika Devi Sharma
- Amrita Sharma
- Pushpa Dhungel
- Karuna Sharma
- Rachana Chettri
- Nar Bahadur Gurung
- Manita Sharma
- Urmila Pradhan
- Pushpanjali Pradhan
- Deepa Sharma
- Nisa Chettri
- Utpana Rai
- Hemlata Sharma
- Nirmala Giri
- Chandrika Rai
- Ganeshwari Dhakal
- Bandana Sharma
- Narbada Chettri
- Narbada Sharma
- Dibya Subba
- Devika Rai
- Pushpanjali Chettri
- Deepak Sapkota
- Sakila Rai
- Rose Mira Rai
- Boppy Nirola
- Bandana Chettri
- Samjana Gurung
- Hem Maya Pandey
- Bhim Devi Sharma
- Premika Sharma
- Meena Tamang
- Tanuja Gurung
- Simyon Rai
- Chandrakala Sharma
- Devendra Pandey
- Aruna Chettri
- Gita Devi Dulal
- Shyam Gurung
- Rudra Kumar Subba
- Ranjana Tamang
- Bishnu Maya Subba
- Prem Sangay Sherpa
- Sujata Sharma
- Sagar Panth
- Mingma Diki Sherpa
- Sanjay Rai
- Gangi Maya Mangar
- Usha Sharma
- Alina Pradhan
- Anita Sundas
- Archana Sharma
- Sheetal Rai
- Kamal Prasad Sharma
- Punam Pradhan
- Durga Devi Sharma
- Krishna Kumari Sharma
- Shasi Kala Gurung
- Sashi Kala Gurung
- Yasuda Chettri
- Anuj Pandey
- Man Bahadur Pradhan
- Puja Tewari
- Pushpa Sharma
- Rabina Sharma
- Dawa Doma Tamang
- Pushpa Sharma
- Krishna Kumar Sharma
- Rekha Sharma
- Mala Sherpa
- Albina Subba
- Umesh Sapkota
- Prem Kumari Mangar
- Manisha Sharma
- State of Sikkim and ors.
- Chairman
- Sikkim State Teachers Recruitment Board
- Controller of Examination
Case Summary
Jina Manger and Ors. and Sushma Subba filed Case No. WP(C) /7/2020 in the Sikkim High Court on 4 Jun 2020 against State of Sikkim and ors. and Chairman. The case has undergone 7 hearings over 9 months. The case was disposed of on 7 Jul 2021. 9 orders have been issued in this matter.
Hearing History (7)
- 7JUL 2021Disposal
Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice
- 24JUN 2021Hearing
Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice
- 23APR 2021Hearing
Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice
Orders (9)
- 7JUL 2021judgementView Order ↗
Order No: 9
- 24JUN 2021orderView Order ↗
Order No: 8
- 23APR 2021orderView Order ↗
Order No: 7
Judgement DetailsView full order PDF ↗
COURT NO.1 HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM Record of Proceedings through Video Conferencing WP (C) No.
07/2020 JINA MANGER & ORS PETITIONER (S) VERSUS STATE OF SIKKIM & ORS.
RESPONDENT (S) For Petitioner : Mr.
Jushan Lepcha, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr.
Sudesh Joshi, Addl.
Advocate General Mr.
Sujan Sunwar, Asst.
Govt.
Advocate Mr.
Zigmi Bhutia, Standing Counsel, Education Department Date: 07/07/2021 CORAM : HON’BLE MR.
JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR MAHESHWARI, CJ. … The petitioner has assailed the Notification dated 25.02.2020 for withdrawal of the advertisement dated 14.03.2018 which was under challenge in WP(C) No.
19/2019.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well the Additional Advocate General at length.
On perusal of the facts in the present case a writ in the nature of the mandamus or certiorari has been prayed for while challenging the withdrawal of the advertisement by the impugned notification.
It is contended that the petitioners were eligible for appointment having qualification as per Rules.
They have applied and faced the process of selection appearing in the written examination and oral interview.
It is only the result is awaited at that time withdrawal of the advertisement by the impugned Notification is not permissible.
In such case it is to observe that a writ in the nature of mandamus can only be issued when the petitioners are having indefeasible right.
It is a settled law that even selection does not confer right for appointment.
It is also settled that the authority withdrawing the advertisement if not acted arbitrarily with COURT NO.1 HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM Record of Proceedings through Video Conferencing mala fide intention, interference in exercise of the power under Article 226 of Constitution of India is not warranted.
On perusal of the pleadings of the Writ Petition it is nowhere averred that withdrawal of the notification is due to mala fide. mala fide.
In absence of having any pleading regarding mala fide for the reasons as stated in the notification for withdrawal of the Advertisement, in the considered opinion of this Court, interference is not warranted.
More so, the petitioners who have faced the process of selection do not have any right to seek the writ in the nature of mandamus.
Simultaneously, the Writ Petition No.19/2019 has already been dismissed as infructuous wherein the advertisement dated 14.03.2018 was assailed which has been withdrawn in the present case.
Therefore, in the said facts, in the considered opinion of this Court, interference in exercise of power under Article 226 is not required.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
At this stage, learned Additional Advocate General has assured to this Court that in furtherance to the previous advertisement, the persons who have participated in the process of selection would be given due weightage granting relaxation of age while issuing the fresh advertisement.
Taking note of the said assurance the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
Chief Justice jk/avi