# STATE OF SIKKIM v. SURENDRA PRASAD SHARMA AND ORS. ETC. ETC - **Citation:** [1994] 3 S.C.R. 563 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1994-04-19 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4918 of 1984 - **Bench:** A.M. Ahmadi, N. Venkatachala - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-sikkim-v-surendra-prasad-sharma-and-ors-etc-etc-12277 - **Pages:** 29 ## Headnote B Constitution of India-Article 371,F(kj-J'Laws in Force"-Held, includes subordinate legislation and hence includes Sikkim Government Establishment Rules 1974-Adaptation Orders under Article 371-F (1) and adoption of the said Rule with modifications under Ariicle 309-held, did not C detract from their Character as "law in force"-Non obstante clause protects all existing laws even if they conflict with provisions of the Constitution. Constitution of India-Article 16(3)-Held, protects preference given to residents of Sikkim under Rule 4( 4) of the Sikkim Government Establishment Rules, I974. D Constitution of India-Article 14-Tests for classification reiterate~ Held, emphasis is not only on grouped together from others left out of the group and that the said >-- differential has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the H said legislation. Of course the classification must not be arbitrary but • • STATE OF SIKKIM v. S.1'. SHARMA 565 must be based on some distinct qualities and characteristics peculiar to A the persons included in the group and absent from those excluded, and those peculiarities must have a reasonable nexus to the object proposed to be achieved. In other words the doctrine of classification evolved by the Courts permits equals to be grouped together and does not permit une· quals to be treated by the same yardstick. Differential treatment becomes unlawful if it is arbitrary and not based on any rational relation with the statutory objective. The emphasis is not only on de jure equality but also on de facto equality. Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination inter alia on the ground of place of birth. So also Article 16(2) prohibits discrimination on grounds of descent, place of birth, residence or any of them in respect of B any employment or appointment. The former prohibits the State from C discriminating against any citizen whereas the latter prohibits discrimination in matters of employment or office under the State. However, Article 16(3) empowers Parliament to make a law prescribing requirement of residence in the matter of employment. [576-G-H, 577-A-C] 2. Tiie Establishment Rules of 1974 were in existence before the historical developments led to Sikkim becoming an associate State in the first instance and later a full fledged State of the Union of India. The President of India in exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 371-F made the Adaptation of Sikkim Laws (No.I) Order, 1979, which defined the expression "existing laws" to mean any law in force before the appointed day, i.e. 26th April 1975 in the whole or any part of the ter· ritories comprised in the State of Sikkim and the term "law" was defined to include any enactment, proclamation, regulations, rule, notification, or other instrument having immediately before the appointed day, the force of law in the whole or any part of the territory now comprised in the State of Sikkim. It is, therefore, obvious from the broad definition of the term "law" that the Establishment Rules of 1974 would fall within the fold of the expression "existing law" and in any case "law in force" within the meaning D E F of clause (k) of Article 371-F of the Constitution. This Court has la,tl down that in deciding whether an order is legislative i.e. law, what is necessary to be borne in mind is the nature of the order, the scope and effect of its G provisions, the setting and context thereof, the method of its promulgation etc. Applying this test and beariug in mind the definition of the expression "existing law" read with the definition of "law", there can be no doubt that the Rules in question fall within the meaning of "law in force" under Clause (k) of Article 371-F. It is for that reason that the Respondent exercised H 566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) 3 S.C.R. A power in relation to the said law under Clause (I) or Article 371-F or the Constitution. This is further reinforced by the fact that these Rules were adopted with modifications under Article 309 or the Constitution. [581-C-H; 582-A-B] Union of India v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacl!lling (Weaving) Co. B Lid., (1964] 7 SCR 89; Naning Pratap Singh Deo v. State of Orissa, AIR (1964) SC 1763 = [1964] 2 SCR 112 and State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Lal Bhargavendra Singh, (1964] 2 SCR 56, relied on. 3. Clause (k) or Article 37-F provides that notwithstanding anything c in the Constitution, all laws in force immediately before the appointed day in the territories comprised in the State of Sikkim or any part thereof, were to continue to be in force until altered or repealed. Although the expression "all laws in force" has not been defined the said expression must receive its ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning. The latter part of the clause until amended or repealed by a competent legislature D or other competent authority - is indicative of the fact that the said expression was not intended to be confined only to legislative enactrnents but also to laws which could be altered or amended or repealed by "other competent authority" other than the legislature itself. This supplies a clear indication that the said expression is wide enough to include subordinate legislation, e.g. Rules, Regulations, Orders etc. The expression "existing E law" is defined by Article 366(1) to include any rule, regulation, bye law etc. and the expression "all laws in force" means all existing laws. Rut quite apart from the definitions in Article 366(10), on a plain reading of clause (k) in which the expression occurs, it seems clear that the said expression is wide enough to include the Establishment Rules of 1974. (583-H; F 584-A-D] Edward Mills Co. Ltd. Beawar v. State of Ajmer, AIR (1955) SC 25, relied on. Director of I11dust1ies & Commerce, Govt. of A.P. Hayderabad v. V. G Venkata Reddy, (1973] 2 SCR 562; A. V.S. Narasimha Rao & Ors. v. State of A.P., (1970] 2 SCR 115; Desh Bandhu Gupta & Co. Ors. v. Delhi Stock Exchange Assn. Ltd., [1979] 3 SCR 373 and K.P. Varghese v. The Income Tax Officer, Emakulam & Anothe1; (1982] 1 SCR 629, referred to. ~ l ' .. • 4. The view of the High Court that it is not possible to constme the ;,..., H expression "Sikkimese Nationals" in Rule 4(4) as "locals" or permanent STATE OF SIKKIM v. S.P.SHARMA 567 ftsidents or Sikkim and that the preference sought to be given by Rule 4(4) A • has become Ineffective and unworkable because Sikkimese nationality has ceased to exist as a politico-legal concept is highly technical and difficult to < accept. Since this was an existing law which was c_ontinued in force, it would naturally contain expressions which were in vogue on the appointed day. These expressions had to be understood in the sense in which they were B defined in the Sikkim Subjects Regnlations, 1961. Regulation 3 defines Sikkim subjects and Regulation 7 explains who shall not be Sikkim sub- ,. jects. The expressions "Sikkimese nationals" and "non-Sikkimese nationals" used in the proviso to Rule 4( 4) are to be read and understood in the context of the provisions of the aforesaid Regnlations. (585-A-E] c 5. The Establishment Rules of 1974 are "existing law" within the meaning of clause (k) of Article 371-F and therefore enjoy the protection of the non-obstante clause, notwithstanding the fact that they were the subject matter of Adaptation Orders issued by the President of India and were modified under Article 309 of the Constitution with effect from 26th April D 1975. In relation to clause (k) of Article 371-F, thenon-ohstante clause seeks to extend protection to all existing laws even if they may conflict with any of the provisions of the Constitution and in the absence of such protection • would be declared u/tar vires the Constitution. Since the laws which were in --· force before the appointed day bad not to go through the test of satisfying the requirement of the Constitution, the possibility of those laws being in E conflict with the provisions of the Constitution could not be ruled and hence they had to be protected by the non-obstante clause. There b no question of clause (k) itself being in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution, bnt there was every possibility of the laws in force immediately before the appointed day being in conflict and they bad to be protected from being F assailed to be unconstitutional. [585-G-H; 586-A-D] • RC Poudyal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., JT (1993) 2 SC 1, referred to. 6. It may be noticed that even the laws which were prevailing in India G ' under the British Rules were not expected to accord with the Constitution of free India. Article 371-F occupies a special position to cope with a special situation with a special historical backdrop. The reason why it begins with a non-obstante clause obviously is that the matters referred to in the various clauses immediately following required a protective cover so that matters are not struck down as unconstitutional. Unless such H - 568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R. A immunity was granted the laws in force would have had to meet the test of Article 13 of the Constitution. This being the objective, existing laws or laws in force came lo be protected by clause (k) of Article 371-F. The said laws in force in the state of Sikkim were therefore protected, until amended or repealed, to ensure smooth transition from the Chogyal's rule B to the democratic rule under the Constitution. Inherent io clause (I) is the assumption that many of such existing laws may be inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore the President came to be conferred with a special po~r to make adaptation and modifications with a view to making the said rule consistent with the Constitution. Of course this power has to be exercised within two years from the appointed day. If any adaptation C or modification is made in the Law in force prevailing prior to the appointed day, the law would apply subject to such adaptation and modification. It is thus obvious that the adaptation and modification made by the President in exercise of this special power does not have the effect of the law ceasing to be a law in force within the meaning of clause (k) of Article 371-F. Therefore on the plain language of the said provision D it is difficult to hold that the effect of adaptation or modification is to take the law out of the purview of "law in force". (588-F; 589-H; 590-A-EJ 7. The Establishment Rules were merely "adopted" with modification with effect from 26th April 1975. Rule 4(4) remains as it was and the Rules continue to be effective from !st April 1974. Effect must be given to the E intendment of the said provision viz Article 371-F (k) specially introduced in the Constitution to comply with the understanding on which Sikkim had agreed to merge with India. And since all laws in force in the territory of erstwhile Sikkim immediately before tl!e appointed day could not be changed overnight, those existing laws had to be continued, more so F because the transition had to be smooth and gradual so that it did not give a sudden and severe jolt to the establishment. (590-F-H; 591-A] 8. It is well settled that constitutional provision must be liberally construed to the extent the language permits it and should not be interG preted in a narrow and pedantic manner, more so in the case of transitory provisions. (588-D-E] Synthetic & Chemicals Ltd. etc. v. State or U.P. & Ors., (1989] Supp. I SCR 623 and Indian Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu etc., [1989] 1 H Supp. SCR 692, relied on. • • - STATE OF SIKKIM v. S.P.SHARMA[AHMADl,J.] 569 9. Besides, provision as to residential requirement could always be A made by virtue of Article 16(3) of the Constitution. Therefore if a provision in the Establishment Rules appears to offend Article 16(2), since such a provision is permissible by virtue of Article 16(3) and the Parliament permits its continuance by a special provision, Article 371 (k), the said requirement giving preference to "locals" cannot be struck down as unconB stitutional and any action based on the said provision would not be inconsistent with Part Ill of the Constitution. [591-A-C] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4918 of 1984 etc. etc. c From the Judgment and Order dated 29.2.84 of the Sikkim High Court io W.P.No. 29 of 1982. K. Parasaran, K. Swami and A. Subba Rao for the '.'.'-ppellant. Narayan B. Shetye, G.S. Chatterjee and Raja Chatterjee for the D Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI, J. A short but ioterestiog question arises io these appeals by special leave beariog on the true scope and meaning of Rule 4( 4) of the E Sikkim Government Establishment Rules, 1974, (hereinafter called 'the Rules'), which were in force before Sikkim became a part of the territory of India. The relevant part of the said Rule with which we are concerned reads as follows : "4( 4) : APPOINTMENT : (A) Appoiotment to senice under the F Government shall be by one or both the methods indicated below: (a) Direct recruitment; (b) Promotion from one grade to another. G (B) Direct recruitment shall include appointment on contract, and appoiotment on deputation : Provided these two types of appointment shall be made havin'g due regard to the exact nature of specific duties and responsibilities and the qualifications required for the post, and further provided H A B 570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R. that (i) Non-Sikkimese nationals may be appointed only when suitably qualified and experienced Sikkimese nationals are not available, and (ii) replacement of such appointees by suitable Sikkimese candidates may be made as and when available." Fortunately, the facts on which this group of cases arise were admitted in the High Court. The admitted facts were recorded by the High Court on 14.9.1983 and the said record was signed by the learned coiJnsel for the parties in token of their having accepted them as forming the factual matrix for the decision of the writ petitions. But before we set out the factual matrix we may take note of the historical developments leading to Sikkim C becoming one of the State of India. Pursuant to an agreement reached between the Chogyal of Sikkim and leaders of the political parties representing the people of Sikkim on the one hand and the Govt. of India on the other, the Sikkim Assembly D unanimously passed the Government of Sikkim Bill, 1974, which was duly promulgated by the Chogyal on 4.7.1974 as the Government of Sikkim Act, 1974. By this Act the Government of Sikkim was empowered to take steps for seeking representation of the people of Sikkim in India's Parliamentary system. A formal request to this effect was made to the Government of India which gave effect to the Will of the people of Sikkim by amending E the Constitution of India. By the Constitution 35th Amendment Act, 1974, Article 2A was inserted in the Constitution which ran as under : F "2A. Sikkim to be associated with the Union. -Sikkim, which comprises the territories specified in the Tenth Schedule, shall be associated with the Union on the terms and conditions set out in that Schedule." The terms and conditions of Sikkim's association with the Union of India were set out in Part B of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. Thereafter a special opinion poll was conducted by the Government of Sikkim G on 14.4.1975 on the basis whereof the Chief Minister of Sikkim requested the Government of India to admit Sikkim as a full-fledged State in the First Schedule to the Constitution. Consequently by the 36th Amendment Act, 1975, entry 22 was added and inserted in the First Schedule whereby Sikkim became a part of India. Article 371-F was also introduced in our H Constitution, clauses (k) and (1) whereof provided as under : · 1 } , ........ ~ .. - , .• -~ STATE OF SIKKIM v. S.P. SHARMA [AHMADI, J.] 571 "371-F. Special provisions with respect to the State of SikkimA Nothwithstanding anything in this Constitution, - (k) all laws in force immediately before the appointed day in the territories comprised in the State of Sikkim or any part thereof shall continue to be in force therein until amended or repealed by B a competent legislature or other competent authority; (1) For the purpose of facilitating the application of any such law as is referred to in clause (k) in relation to the administration of the State of Sikkim and for the purpose of bringing the provisions of any such law into accord with the provisions of this Constitution, c the President may, within two years from the appointed day, by order, make such adaptations and modifications of the law, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as may be necessary or expedient, and thereupon, every such law shall have effect subject to the adaptations and modifications so made, any such adaptation D or modification shall not be questioned in any court of law." By the said amendment which came into force w.e.f. 26.4.1975, Article 2A was repealed since it had lost significance once Sikkim was added as a territory of India. We may now briefly outline the undisputed factual matrix. After E Sikkim became the 22nd State of the Union of India, the Directorate of Survey and Settlement of the Government of Sikkim created and advertised certain posts and invited applications for filling up the said temporary posts. The respondents in this group of appeals applied for the posts and were appointed in different capacities in 1976. As and when the survey F work was completed the surplus employees were relieved of their jobs in 1980, 1981 and 1982. In 1982 some of the surplus employees who were 'nonlocals' filed writ petitions in the High Court of Sikkim challenging the Government's decision terminating their services. A learned Single Judge of the High Court by his judgment and order dated 29.2.1984 allowed the G writ petitions and quashed the termination orders. It is against the view taken by the leaned Single Judge that the present appeals have been preferred. Before we proceed to deal-with the submissions made before us it would be advantageous to notice the controversy projected before the High H 572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R. A Court. The grievance of the employees was that in effecting termination of the services of surplus employees, the employees were classified as 'locals' and 'non-locals' and while the employees belonging to the former class were retained, the employees belonging to the latter class were relieved, their inter-se seniority notwithstanding. There is no dispute that the services B of the respondent were terminated on the ground that they were 'nonlocals' rega~dless of their seniority. On behalf of the State, this discriminatory lreatment was sought to be supported under the proviso to Raje4(4) read with clauses (k) and (1) of Article 371F of the Constitution. The action was also sought to be supported on the ground that in the advertisement issued for the posts in question it was specifically stated that C 'preference will be given to local candidates, whose name/parent's name has been included in the relevant Sikkim Government Register'. It was urged on behalf of the State that iinder the extant laws candidates-from outside coJ!ld not be directly recruited so long as 'locals' were available for such work. Lastly it was said that since they were temporary hands their D services could be terminated on a month's notice. The learned Single Judge, on the basis of the above averments, framed two questions for determination, namely (i) whether the termination of employment on the basis of the aforesaid classification isjustified under the extent laws and(ii) if so, whether the relevant laws are valid and constitutional? The learned judge answered these posers in paragraph 19 of his judgment as under : E F G H ' ......... the relevant provisions of Rule 4(4) of the Sikkim Government Establishment Rules, 1974, which, when these Rules were framed, directed the "Sikkimese-nationals' to be preferred to the non'sikkimese-nationals in all employment s or appointments under the then Government of Sikkim, have become unworkable as a result of Sikkimese-nationality having having ceased to exist as a legally cognizable concept with the incorporation of Sikkim as a component State in the Union of India in 1975. I have also held further that even assuming that the construction of the of the expression "Sikkimese-nationals 11 in the releVant Rules to mean permanent residents of Sikkim would have made the Rules workable in the post-1975 context, such a construction is not possible or locally permissible as one can be a national of one country without being a resident thereof and with his domicile in another country. And I have also held that even if such a construction was p~ssible or permissible, the relevant Rules, so construed, would be ' STATE OF SIKKIM v. S.P.SHARMA[AHMADl,J.] 573 violative of Article 16 of the Constitution as being discriminatory A on the ground of residence and 1 have also pointed out hereinbeffre in considerable details that nothing in Article 371F (k) or Article 35(b ), their non-obstante clauses notwithstanding, would protect them from t!ie challenge of Article 16(1) an (2) read with Article 14 of the Constitution." Thus, the learned judge held that the discrimination based solely on the ground of the employees being 'non-locals' was impermissible under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and consequently struck down the orders of termination based on that ground. Now before Sikkim became a part of India under the Sikkim Subjects Regulations, 1961, every person domiciled in the territory of Sikkim immediately before the commencement of the said Regulations i.e., 3.7.1961 was declared to be a Sikkim subject if he (a) was born in the territory of Sikkim B c and was a resident thereof or (b) he had been ordinarily residing in the D territory of Sikkim for not less then 15 years immediately preceding the commencement of the Regulations or ( c) is the wife or minor child of a person mentioned in (a) or (b) above. Provision was also made in the said Regulations for conferment of the said status by & registration, descent and naturalisation. Any person who renounces his status as a Sikkim subject or voluntarily acquires the citizenship of any other country or a E Sikkimese woman marries a non-Sikkim subject or one who serves his connection with Sikkim are treated under the Regulations as non- Sikkimese. As pointed out earlier certain historical developments led to the enactment of the 35th Amendment which came into force w.e.f. 1.3.1975 whereby Article 2A was introduced in the Constitution of India. By the F said newly added provision Sikkim, comprising the territories specified in the 10th Schedule, was associated with the Union of India on the terms and conditions set out therein. Certain consequential amendments were also made in Article 80 and 81 of the Constitution. In Part B of the said Schedule the responsibilities of the Government of India came to be mentioned in clauses (a) to ( e) but they were made not enforceable by any G Court. Pro\'ision \Vas also made giving Sikkim representation in Parliament. However, shortly thereafter this newly added Article was repealed by the 36th Amendment which came into effect from 26.4.1975. By the said amendment Sikkim was added to the list of States at Serial No.22 in the First and Fourth Schedules. Article 371F was inserted making special H 574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R. A provisions with respect to the new State of Sikkim. The said Article begins wi,h a non-obstante clause - notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution - and, thereafter mentions the various provisions in clauses (a) to (p) thereof, of which clauses (k) and (1) reproduced earlier are relevant for our purpose. By clause (k) all laws in force in the State of Sikkim B immediately before the appointed date were to continue in force therein until amended or repealed, notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution. By clause (1) the President was empowered to make, within two years from the appointed date, provision for adaptations and modifications of the law for the purpose of bringing the provisions of the extant law into accord with the provisions of the Constitution and thereupon such law C had to have effect subject to such adaptations or modifications. It was further provided by clause (m) that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any dispute or other matter arising out of any treaty, agreement, engagement or other similar instrument relating to Sikkim which was entered into or executed before the D appointed day. Pursuant to Article 371F (1) the President made. the Adaptation of Sikkim Laws (No. 1) Order, 1975, which was brought into force w.e.f. 26.4.1975 i.e. the appointed day. By this Order the laws set out in the First Schedule were repealed whereas those mentioned in the · Second Schedule were to have effect, subject to the adaptations and modifications directed by the Schedule. By a subsequent Order called the E Adaptation of Sikkim Laws (No.1) Amendment Order, 1975, which by a deeming fiction was also brought into force w.e.f. 26.4.1975, a new provision was inserted in the previous Order whereby review petitions pending before the appointed day were ordered to be transferred to the High Court. Taking note of these changes the High Court held : F G H "With the incorporation of Sikkim as a component State within the ' Union of India in 1975, Sikkimese - nationality as a separate legal and political concept obviously came to an end and thence forward all in Sikkim are either citizens of India or alien. And Sikkimese - nationality as a legal and political concept having thus ceased to exist on and from 26.4.1975, the relevant provisions of Rule 4 ( 4) of the Sikkim Government Establishment Rules, 1974. Giving preference to Sikkimese - nationals in matters relating to employments or appointments under the State could not but ceased to be workable and to have legal force. On and from the incorporation of Sikkim as a component State of India with effect from 2\j.4.1975, ) 1 }. , STATE OF SIKKIM "· S.P. SHARMA [AHMAD!.J.] 575 Sikkimese nationals ceased to exist as such and. whether or not any express repealment of the Sikkim Subjects Regulation 1961, \Vas necessary, the same was nevertheless expressly repealed \vith effect from 26.4.1975 by the Adaptation of Sikkim Laws (No. 1) Order, 1975, promulgated under Clause (1) of Article 371F of the Constitution of India, inserted by the Constitution India, inserted by the Constitution (Thirty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1975. And an Order, being Sikkim (Citizenship) Order, 1975, was also issued by the President under Section 7 of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955, declaring that "every person who immediately before the 26th day of April, 1975, was a Sikkim Subject under the Sikkim Subjects Regulation 1961, shall be deemed to have become a citizen of India on that day." Therefore, according to the High Court, with the incorporation of Sikkim A B c as a component State of the Indian Union w.e.f. 26.4.1975, Sikkimese nationality ceased to exist as a politico-legal concept and hence Rule 4(4) D ceased to have efficacy in law. The High Court also found it not possible to construe the expression 'Sikkimese~nationals' as equivalent to 'locals' even with the aid of paragraph 11 of the Constitution (Removal or difficulties) Order No. XI of 1975. It further observed that assuming the said expression could be equated with and read as 'locals' in view of the non-obstante clause in Article 371F read with clause (k) thereof, the E classification between 'locals' and 'non~locals' cannot be sustained on the strength of the non-obstante clause because it stared in the face of the equality clause enshrined in Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. Even if it is assumed that by virtue of the non-obstante clause in Article 371-F, the Rules saved by clause (k) thereof enjoyed immunity from the rigour of F Articles 14, 15 and 16, it must be remembered that the existing rules of 1974 had undergone a change when by Nolification dated 17.11.1980 the following paragraph was added : 11In exercise of the powers conferred by the provision of Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Sikkim is pleased G to adopt the Sikkim Government Establishment Rules 1974 as the rules regarding recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State of Sikkim with modifications set out hereinbelow with effect from the 26th day of April, 1975." H 576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ll994J 3 S.C.R. A The High Court observes that the Rules so adopted under Article 309 acquired a distinct legal entity from the Rules as they existed prior to 26.4.1975 and hence \Vhen the impugned orders terminating thC services were passed the said orders were governed by the Rules adopted under Article 309 which Rules were required to satisfy the equality test enshrined B .in Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. The submission based on Article 35 (b) read with Article 372(1) was repelled on the ground that the said provisions applied to the territories forming part of India on 26.1.1950 and not to those included in the Union of India thereafter. On this line of reasoning the High Court quashed the termination orders. C Article 14 provides that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Article 15(1) prohibits the State from discriminating against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Article 16(1) provides that there shall be equality of D opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment/appointment to any office under the State. Article 16(2) next provides that no citizen shall, on grounds only of the religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State. Article 16(3), however empowers E Parliament to make prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office (under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union territory) any requirement as to residence within the State or Union territory prior to such employment or appointment. These briefly are the relevant Parts of Articles 14, 15 and F 16 with which we are concerned. It is well settled that while Article 14 prohibits discrimination and requires that all persons subjected to any legislation shall be treated alike, it does not forbid classification for implementing the right of equality guaranteed by it provided the classification is based on an intelligible G differcntia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and that the said differentia has a rational nexus to the object sought to the achieved by the said legislation. Of course, the classification must not be arbitrary but must be based on some distinct qualities and characteristics peculiar to the persons included in the group H and absent from those excluded and those peculiarities must have· a > - 1 - - • STATE OF SIKKIM 1·. S.P. SHARMA [AHMADI, J.J 577 reasonable nexus to the object proposed to be achieved. In other words, A the_ doctrine of classification evolved, by the Courts_ permits equals to he grouped together and does not permit unequals to_ be treated by the same yardstick. Differential treatment becomes unlawful if it is arbitrary and not based on rational relation with the statutory objective. The emphasis is not only