Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 220
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. …………… OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.5108 of 2023)
ABHISHEK SHARMA …APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF JAMMU AND
KASHMIR & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. …………… OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.5093 of 2023)
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO. …………… OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.12238 of 2023)
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO. …………… OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.2477 of 2025)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 5108 of 2023, Civil
Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 5093 of 2023 and Civil
Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 12238 of 2023
1. Leave granted.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2026.03.10
20:00:44 IST
Reason:
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 1
2. The present appeals call into question the
nd
common judgment dated 22 February, 2023,
passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and
1 2
Ladakh at Jammu in a batch of intra-court appeals
3
along with connected writ petitions , whereby the
learned Division Bench dismissed the said intra-
court appeals and writ petitions and affirmed the
order of the learned Single Judge rejecting the
appellants’ claim for regularisation of their services.
FACTS OF PRESENT CASES: -
3. The brief facts, in a nutshell, insofar as they are
relevant for the disposal of the present appeals, are
stated hereinafter: -
th
3.1. The respondent-State, vide order dated 14
4
December, 2009, issued SRO No. 384 titled “Jammu
and Kashmir Medical and Dental Education
(Appointment on Academic Arrangement Basis)
5
Rules, 2009” . The said SRO envisaged the
1
Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.
2
Letter Patent Appeal Nos. 30, 33, 34, 40, 80, 81, 192, 193 of 2018,
LPA No. 76 of 2019, LPA No. 10 of 2020, LPA Nos. 80 and 81 of
2022.
3
SWP No. 886 of 2018, Writ Petition (C) Nos. 4286 and 4364 of
2019.
4
Hereinafter, referred to as “impugned SRO”.
5
Hereinafter, referred to as “2009 Rules”.
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 2
appointment of personnels to posts relating to
teaching staff, medical officers, nurses, para-medical,
para-dental and technical staff in the Government
Medical Colleges on academic arrangement basis.
3.2. In the interregnum, the respondent-State, on
th
29 April, 2010 enacted Jammu and Kashmir Civil
6
Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, which
provided for the regularisation of employees
appointed on an ad hoc , contractual or consolidated
basis. It is pertinent to note that appointments made
under the impugned SRO were expressly excluded
from the categories eligible to seek regularisation of
service under the said enactment.
3.3. Pursuant to the 2009 Rules, the present
appellants were appointed thereunder to the posts of
Junior Staff Nurse/Female Multipurpose Health
Worker during the period between 2011 and 2013.
th
3.4. On 17 August, 2015 respondent No. 2, namely
the Government Medical College, addressed a
communication to the respondent-State, requesting
that the posts occupied by the appellants be referred
6
Hereinafter, referred to as “2010 Act”.
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 3
to the Service Selection Board for undertaking the
regular selection process.
3.5. In this backdrop, the paramedical staff,
including the present appellants who had been
appointed under the 2009 Rules, submitted a joint
representation to respondent No. 2, i.e. the
Government Medical College, seeking regularisation
of their services and further requesting that their
posts not be referred to the Service Selection Board.
st
3.6. Ultimately, an advertisement dated 1
September, 2015, was issued inviting applications for
appointment on a regular basis to 1088 posts, which
included the posts occupied by the present
appellants.
3.7. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants approached
the High Court by filing writ petitions seeking the
benefit of regularisation under the 2010 Act. The
learned Single Judge, by a common judgment dated
th
4 May, 2018, dismissed the writ petitions and
declined the appellants’ claim for regularisation in
terms of the said Act.
3.8. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants
preferred intra-court appeals before the High Court
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 4
assailing the decision of the learned Single Judge.
The learned Division Bench, by a common judgment
nd
dated 22 February, 2023, dismissed the intra-court
appeals along with the connected writ petitions,
holding that the appellants were not entitled to
regularisation under the 2010 Act.
4. It is in these circumstances that the appellants
have approached this Court.
ISSUE BEFORE THIS COURT: -
5. The issue that, therefore, arises for our
consideration is whether the respondent-State was
justified in law in classifying the present appellants,
who were engaged on an academic arrangement basis
under the impugned SRO No. 384 of 2009, as a
distinct class under Section 3 of the Jammu and
Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010,
and thereby excluding them from the benefit of
regularisation contemplated under the said
enactment.
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 5
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:
6. Dr. Rajiv Nanda and Mrs. V. Mohana, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants,
vehemently assailed the impugned judgment of the
High Court, contending, inter alia, as follows: -
6.1. That Section 9(b) of the 2010 Act expressly
excludes persons appointed on an “academic
arrangement” basis from its purview, thereby
creating an arbitrary and unjustified classification
between the appellants and other similarly
situated employees engaged on an ad hoc,
contractual or consolidated basis. It was
contended that there exists no intelligible
differentia distinguishing the appellants from
such categories, nor any rational nexus between
the said classification and the object sought to be
achieved by the Act.
6.2. That the very object of the 2010 Act was to
cure and regularise long-standing irregular
appointments and to extend legal protection to
employees who had been rendering service for
considerable periods against substantive and
essential posts.
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 6
6.3. That the appellants were appointed during
the period 2011-2012 against clear and
sanctioned vacancies, pursuant to a duly
conducted, transparent selection process
undertaken after verification of their eligibility,
qualifications and experience in accordance with
the applicable recruitment rules. It was further
contended that the appellants have continuously
discharged perennial and essential functions for a
period exceeding a decade.
6.4. That the appellants have been discharging
duties identical in nature, responsibility and
continuity to those performed by regular
employees, and that their functions are
indispensable to the efficient functioning of the
institutions under the respondent-State.
6.5. That the issuance of a fresh advertisement
for the very posts presently occupied by the
appellants was arbitrary, unreasonable and
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
7
of India . It was contended that the respondent-
State, having extracted perennial services from
7
Hereinafter, referred to as “Constitution”.
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 7
the appellants over several years, could not,
without any justifiable basis, seek to displace
them through a fresh selection process.
On these premises, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellants urged that the present
appeals merit acceptance and that the impugned
judgment of the High Court be set aside.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT-STATE: -
7. Per contra , Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned
Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of
the respondent-State, stoutly opposed the
submissions advanced by the appellants and
advanced the following submissions: -
7.1. That Section 3 of the 2010 Act was
applicable only to specified categories of
appointees who fulfilled the statutory cut-off
conditions, and since the appellants were engaged
on an academic arrangement basis, they did not
fall within the ambit of the said provision so as to
claim regularisation thereunder.
7.2. That the proviso to Rule 4 of the impugned
SRO unequivocally stipulates that candidates
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 8
appointed thereunder shall not have any
preferential claim to regular appointment through
the normal process of recruitment.
7.3. That the appellants had furnished
affidavits undertaking to abide by the terms and
conditions of the impugned SRO, and thus, prior
to joining service on an academic arrangement
basis, they had voluntarily accepted the
conditions governing their engagement. Having
consciously assented to the said Rules, the
appellants, it was contended, are estopped from
questioning the consequences flowing therefrom.
7.4. That any regularisation of the appellants’
services would operate to the prejudice of other
eligible candidates, who may have refrained from
applying on the legitimate expectation that the
appointments were purely temporary and would
subsist only until the regular recruitment process
was undertaken.
7.5. That it is a settled position of law that
temporary, contractual or ad hoc engagement
does not confer any vested right to regularisation,
and that regularisation cannot be claimed in
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 9
derogation of, or contrary to, the governing
statutory rules.
On these grounds, the learned Additional
Solicitor General appearing for the respondent-State
submitted that the present appeals preferred by the
appellants are devoid of merit and, accordingly,
deserve to be dismissed.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION: -
8. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of both parties and have
carefully perused the material placed on record.
9. While dismissing the intra-court appeals
preferred by the present appellants and affirming the
order of the learned Single Judge, the learned
Division Bench recorded the following findings: -
i. That the learned Single Judge rejected the
appellants’ claim for regularization under the
2010 Act on the ground that the said statute
th
applied only to appointments made up to 29
April, 2010, being the appointed date under the
Act.
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 10
ii. That the Rules under which the appellants were
appointed were framed with the object of
ensuring that the functioning of the Medical and
Dental Colleges did not suffer on account of
delays in the regular recruitment process.
iii. That the appellants were fully conscious of the
condition that they would not be entitled to any
preferential claim for regular appointment
through the normal process of selection, and
therefore could not subsequently seek
regularization.
iv. That even assuming, for the sake of argument,
that the appellants could be treated as
contractual employees, their engagement was
for a limited duration and it could not be said
that the respondent-State had utilized their
services for an unduly prolonged period.
10. At the very threshold, we find ourselves unable
to concur with the reasoning adopted by both the
courts below. The High Court failed to advert to the
correct position of law. Once a specific challenge was
mounted by the present appellants to the of the
vires
2010 Act, on the ground that the same infringed the
fundamental rights guaranteed under the
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 11
Constitution, it was incumbent upon the High Court
to undertake a substantive examination as to
whether the impugned provisions satisfied the
constitutional threshold. Instead, the provisions were
upheld as they stood, without any meaningful
scrutiny or analysis as to their compatibility with the
constitutional scheme. It is this perfunctory and
truncated approach adopted by the courts below that
has necessitated our examination of the validity of
the challenge raised before us.
rd
10.1. This Court, vide order dated 23 June,
2023, passed in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C)
No. 12238 of 2023, directed that status quo be
maintained with respect to the appellants and all
other similarly placed employees. Consequently,
the appellants have continued in the service of the
respondent-State throughout the pendency of the
present lis .
10.2. The appellants were appointed during the
period between 2011 and 2013 under SRO No.
384. The respondent-State enacted the 2010 Act,
which provided for the regularisation of employees
appointed on an ad hoc , contractual or
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 12
consolidated basis. The relevant provisions of the
said enactment, insofar as they bear upon the
controversy in question, are extracted
hereinbelow: -
“ . . .
3. Application of the Act.
The provisions of this Act shall
apply to such posts under the
Government as are held by any
person having been appointed on
ad hoc or contractual basis
including those appointed on
consolidated pay provided that
such appointments have been made
against the clear vacancies, but
shall not apply to : –
(a) . . .
(b) persons appointed on tenure
posts co-terminus with the life of
the project or Scheme of the State
or Central Government, as the
case may be, and those appointed
on academic arrangement for a
fixed term in any Government
Department ;
. . .
5. Regularization of ad hoc or
contractual or consolidated
appointees. –
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 13
Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in any law for the
time being in force or any judgment or
order of any court or tribunal, the ad
hoc or contractual or consolidated
appointees referred to in section 3
shall be regularized on fulfilment of
the following conditions, namely: –
(i) that he has been appointed
against a clear vacancy or post;
(ii) that he continues as such on
the appointed day;
(iii) that he possessed the requisite
qualification and eligibility for the
post on the date of his initial
appointment on ad hoc or
contractual or consolidated basis
as prescribed under the
recruitment rules governing the
service or post;
(iv) that no disciplinary or criminal
proceedings are pending against
him on the appointed day; and
(v) that he has completed seven
years of service as such on the
appointed day:
Provided that the regularization
of the eligible ad hoc or contractual or
consolidated appointees under this
Act shall have effect only from the
date of such regularization,
irrespective of the fact that such
appointees have completed more than
seven years of service on the
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 14
appointed day or thereafter but before
such regularization:
Provided further that any ad
hoc or contractual or consolidated
appointee who has not completed
seven years’ service on the
appointed day shall continue as
such till completion of seven years
and shall thereafter be entitled to
regularization under this Act .
. . . ”
(emphasis supplied)
Accordingly, Section 3 of the 2010 Act
expressly excludes from its ambit persons
appointed on an academic arrangement for a fixed
tenure in any Government Department. By
operation of Section 3(b) of the said Act, the
respondent-State has sought to justify its policy
decision of treating the present appellants as a
separate category and denying them the benefit of
regularisation under the 2010 Act.
10.3. The said provision was assailed by the
present appellants by filing writ petitions before
the High Court, wherein a specific prayer was
made for issuance of a writ of mandamus
declaring Section 3(b) of the 2010 Act, insofar as
it excluded persons appointed on an academic
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 15
arrangement for a fixed term in any Government
Department, as ultra vires the Constitution. The
reliefs sought by the appellants in the writ
petitions before the High Court were, accordingly,
as follows: -
“ a) Certiorari so as to set aside and
quash letter No. AHJ/ 2015/2014
dated 17-08-2015 to the extent it
refers the posts held by the
petitioners to SSRB with a
consequential direction to quash the
resultant advertisement Notice issued
by SSRB bearing No.05 of 2015 dated
0109-2015 issued by respondent
No.6 upto the extent of advertising the
posts of FMPHW/Junior Grade Nurse
(Item No.264 and Item No.267).
b) Certiorari / Mandamus declaring
part of Section 3(b) of Civil Services
Special Provision Act, 2010 to the
extent of providing those appointed
on academic arrangement for a fixed
term in any Government Department
as ultra-vires the constitution and
violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India and quashing
the same.
c) Further writ of mandamus directing
and commanding the respondents to
allow the petitioners to continue
within the Proviso 2 of Section 5 of the
Civil Services Special Provision Act,
2010 to complete seven years of their
service and submit their cases to
Empowered Committee for
regularization within the provision of
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 16
said Act after completion of seven
years.
d) Writ of prohibition restraining the
respondents 1, 2, 5 and 6 from filling
up the posts held by the petitioners
and particularly restraining
respondent No.5 and 6 from Initiating
any further selection process in
respect of the posts advertised at item
No.264 and Item No-267.
e) Issue writ in the nature of
mandamus declaring the provision of
SRO 384 of 2009 dated 14-12-2009 is
so far as it excludes the petitioners
from seeking regularization as Female
Multipurpose Health Worker, Junior/
Senior Staff Nurse be declared as
unconstitutional and in violation to
the mandate of Article 39 -D of the
Constitution of India. ”
10.4. The parameters on which the validity of a
legislative enactment may be assailed have been
consistently reiterated by this Court. A 3-Judge
Bench of this Court, in Anjum Kadari and
8
another v. Union of India and others , has
authoritatively held that a law enacted by
Parliament or a State Legislature can be
invalidated by courts on two grounds alone,
namely: (i) lack of legislative competence; and (ii)
infringement of any of the fundamental rights
8
(2025) 5 SCC 53
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 17
guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution or
violation of any other constitutional provision.
10.5. Accordingly, Section 3(b) of the 2010 Act is
required to be tested on the anvil of the principles
laid down by this Court to determine its
constitutional validity. It is not in dispute that the
appellants do not assail the 2010 Act on the
ground of lack of legislative competence of the
respondent-State. Consequently, the sole issue
that survives for consideration is whether the
classification engrafted under Section 3(b) of the
2010 Act offends the fundamental rights
guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
10.6. According to the appellants, the impugned
provision expressly excludes persons appointed
under an “academic arrangement”, such as the
present appellants, from its ambit. It is contended
that this exclusion creates an artificial and
arbitrary classification, resulting in an unjustified
distinction between the appellants and other
similarly situated employees engaged on an ad
hoc , contractual or consolidated basis.
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 18
10.7. The 2010 Act, thus, creates two distinct
classes of appointees, namely: those appointed on
an ad hoc , contractual or consolidated basis, and
those engaged on an academic arrangement.
10.8. More recently, a 7-Judge Bench of this
Court, in State of Punjab and others v.
9
Davinder Singh and others , had occasion to
consider the permissibility of sub-classification
within the framework of affirmative action, in the
context of the equality mandate under Article 14
of the Constitution. While delineating the
parameters governing the creation of
classifications without transgressing the principle
of equality before the law, this Court observed as
follows: -
“84. Article 14 employs two
expressions — equality before the law
and equal protection of the laws. Both
different in content and sweep.
“Equality before the law”, an
expression derived from the English
Common law, entails absence of
special privileges for any individual
within the territory. It does not mean
that the same law should apply to
everyone, but that the same law
should apply to those who are
similarly situated. The expression
9
(2025) 1 SCC 1
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 19
“equal protection of the laws”
means that among equals, laws
must be equally administered. It
enjoins the State with the power to
reasonably classify those who are
differently placed . The mandate of
“equal protection of laws” casts a
positive obligation on the State to
ensure that everyone may enjoy equal
protection of the laws, and no one is
unfairly denied this protection. In
essence, the guarantee of equality
entails that all persons in like
circumstances must be treated
alike. That there must be a parity
of treatment under parity of
conditions. Equality does not entail
sameness. The State is allowed to
classify in a manner that is not
discriminatory . The doctrine of
classification gives content to the
guarantee of equal protection of the
laws. Under this approach, the focus
is on the equality of results or
opportunities over equality of
treatment.
85. The Constitution permits valid
classification if two conditions are
fulfilled. First , there must be an
intelligible differentia which
distinguishes persons grouped
together from others left out of the
group. The phrase “intelligible
differentia” means difference
capable of being understood. The
difference is capable of being
understood when there is a
yardstick to differentiate the class
included and others excluded from
the group. In the absence of the
yardstick, the differentiation would
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 20
be without a basis and hence,
unreasonable. The basis of
classification must be deducible
from the provisions of the statute;
surrounding circumstances or
matters of common knowledge . In
making the classification, the State is
free to recognise degrees of harm.
Though the classification need not
be mathematical in precision, there
must be some difference between
the persons grouped and the
persons left out, and the difference
must be real and pertinent. The
classification is unreasonable if
there is “little or no
difference”. Second , the differentia
must have a rational relation to the
object sought to be achieved by the
law, that is, the basis of
classification must have a nexus
with the object of the
classification . ”
(emphasis supplied)
Article 14 of the Constitution, therefore, does not
fetter the power of the State to frame
classifications, for equals alone are entitled to
equal treatment. Persons who are not similarly
situated cannot claim parity. However, the said
principle does not confer upon the State an
unfettered licence to carve out artificial
distinctions within a class of persons who are
otherwise similarly situated. Any such artificial or
unreasonable classification would strike at the
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 21
very core of the right to equality and violate the
mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.
10.9. Thus, for a classification to withstand
constitutional scrutiny, two conditions are
required to be satisfied. First , there must exist an
intelligible differentia , namely, a rational and
discernible basis which distinguishes one group of
persons from another, founded on a real and
relevant criterion. As observed in Davinder Singh
( supra ), in the absence of such a yardstick, the
differentiation would be bereft of any rational
foundation and would, therefore, be
unreasonable. Second , the differentia so adopted,
being the basis of the classification, must bear a
rational nexus with the object sought to be
achieved by the classification.
10.10. In the present case, the 2010 Act extends
the benefit of regularisation to appointees engaged
on an ad hoc , contractual or consolidated basis,
whereas those appointed on an academic
arrangement, such as the present appellants, are
placed in a separate category and rendered
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 22
ineligible for the benefit of regularisation under
the said enactment.
10.11. Appointments of a contractual nature were
regulated by SRO No. 255 issued by the
th
respondent-State on 5 August, 2003 titled
“Jammu and Kashmir Contractual Appointment
Rules, 2003”. A comparative examination of the
said 2003 Contractual Rules and the impugned
SRO of 2009 governing appointments on an
academic arrangement basis reveal that a
substantial number of provisions contained
therein are identical or closely similar in nature.
10.12. Rule 4 of both the sets of Rules pertains to
appointments made thereunder. Rule 4(1) of SRO
No. 384 of 2009 (the impugned SRO) and Rule 4(1)
of SRO No. 255 of 2003 (the 2003 Contractual
Rules) are identically worded. For the sake of
clarity, the relevant extract is reproduced
hereinbelow: -
SRO No. 384 of 2009
(impugned SRO, governing
appointment on academic
basis)
SRO No. 255 of 2003
(2003 Contractual Rules)
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 23
4. Appointment under these
rules. –
4. Appointment under
these rules. –
(1) Notwithstanding anything
to the contrary contained in
any rule or order for the time
being in force relating to the
method of recruitment and
conditions of service for
recruitment in any service, or
to any post under the
Government, the appointing
authority may appoint persons
to the posts mentioned under
rule 3 on academic
arrangement basis initially for
a period of one year extendable
upto maximum of six years
(one year at a time and subject
to good performance and
conduct) or till
selection/promotion is made in
accordance with the rules of
recruitment governing the
respective posts, whichever is
earlier:
(1) Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary
contained in any rule or
order for the time being in
force relating to the
method of recruitment and
conditions of service for
recruitment in any service,
or to any post, under the
Government, the
appointing authority may
appoint persons to the
posts notified under Rule 3
on contract basis initially
for a period of one year or
till regular selection is
made in accordance with
the rules of recruitment
governing the respective
posts, whichever is earlier.
Provided that the
appointment under these
rules shall not entitle the
appointee to any
preferential claim for
regular appointment
under normal process of
selection.
Provided that the appointment
under these rules shall not
entitle the appointee to any
preferential claim for regular
appointment under normal
process of
selection/appointment.
(2) the services of an
appointee under these
rules shall be terminable
. . .
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 24
before the expiry of the
contractual period with
one month’s notice, form
either side, or on payment
of one month’s salary in
lieu of notice by the
appointing authority.
(2) The services of an appointee
under these rules shall be
terminate before the expiry of
the tenure appointment with
one month’s notice, from either
side, or on payment of one
month’s salary in lieu of notice
by the appointing authority.
(3) The appointee under
these rules shall have to
execute an agreement with
the Government on the
prescribed from appended
as Form ‘A’ to these rules.
(3) The appointee under these
rules shall have to execute an
agreement with the
Government on the prescribed
form appended as Form ‘A’ to
these rules.
(4) The appointment on
academic arrangement basis
against a post shall be made
only when in filling up the post
according to relevant
recruitment rules is likely to be
time consuming.
10.13. A conjoint reading of the provisions of both
the SROs reveals a striking degree of similarity.
The first proviso to the impugned SRO as well as
to the 2003 Contractual Rules is pari materia ,
inasmuch as both stipulate that appointments
made thereunder shall not confer any preferential
claim for regular appointment through the normal
process of selection. Rule 2 of both the SROs
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 25
further provides that the services of an appointee
may be terminated prior to the expiry of the tenure
or contractual period, as the case may be, upon
issuance of one month’s notice or on payment of
one month’s salary in lieu thereof. Significantly,
Rule 3 of both the SROs prescribes the execution
of a formal agreement between the respondent-
State and the appointee, and the language
employed in the agreements under both the SROs
is identical.
10.14. The sole distinction between the two sets
of provisions lies in the tenure of engagement. The
impugned SRO of 2009, governing appointments
on an academic arrangement basis, prescribes a
ceiling on the term of service, providing that such
appointments shall be made for a period of one
year, extendable up to a maximum of six years. In
contrast, the 2003 Contractual Rules contemplate
appointments for a period of one year or until a
regular selection is made in accordance with the
applicable recruitment rules, whichever is earlier.
10.15. In the present case, the appellants have
already exceeded the six-year ceiling prescribed
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 26
under Rule 4(1) of the impugned SRO, by reason
of the interim orders directing maintenance of
status quo , initially passed by the High Court on
th
7 June, 2018, in the intra-court appeals and
th
thereafter by this Court vide order dated 17
April, 2023. Had the respondent-State simply
terminated the services of the appellants upon
completion of six years, as contemplated under
Rule 4(1), the appellants would have been
rendered ineligible to claim the benefit of
regularisation upon completion of seven years of
service under the 2010 Act.
10.16. The question that, therefore, arises for our
consideration is whether the criterion adopted by
the respondent-State to treat the present
appellants differently withstands scrutiny in the
eyes of law, or whether the differentia sought to be
carved out offends the equality principles
enshrined in the Constitution.
10.17. We are unable to accede to the submission
of the respondent-State that the criterion adopted
to deny parity of treatment to the appellants is
valid and legally sustainable. The exception
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 27
carved out under Section 3(b) of the 2010 Act
could have been justified only if appointees
engaged on an academic arrangement basis were
inherently incapable of satisfying the conditions
stipulated under the Act. However, once those
conditions stand fulfilled, we find no cogent basis
to deny such appointees the benefit of
regularisation.
10.18. More so, such benefit would necessarily
have to be extended by the respondent-State
where the nature of duties discharged by
appointees engaged on an academic arrangement
basis is identical to the duties performed by those
falling within the other categories rendered eligible
for the benefit of regularisation.
10.19. Section 5(v) of the 2010 Act stipulates, as
a necessary condition for regularisation, that an
employee must have completed seven years of
th
service as on the appointed day, namely 28 April,
2010. However, the second proviso to the said
provision expressly acknowledges the possibility
of subsequent fulfilment of the minimum
requirement of seven years of service.
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 28
10.20. The second proviso further provides that
an appointee who had not completed seven years
of service on the appointed day shall continue in
service until the completion of the requisite period
of seven years and shall thereafter become entitled
to regularisation under the Act. The beneficial
tenor of the said provision manifests the intent of
the respondent-State to avoid the enactment of
measures that would have otherwise operated
harshly against employees who, though short of
the prescribed tenure on the appointed day, would
subsequently fulfil the minimum requirement of
seven years of service for availing the benefit of
regularisation.
10.21. Accordingly, once the conditions
stipulated under Section 5(i) to (v) of the 2010 Act
stand satisfied, the appointee becomes entitled to
seek regularisation of service at the hands of the
State. In such circumstances, the nature of the
initial engagement, whether on an academic
arrangement, ad hoc , contractual or consolidated
basis, would cease to be of determinative
relevance.
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 29
10.22. Additionally, the very object underlying
the enactment of the 2010 Act was to cure and
regularise long-standing irregular appointments
and to extend legal protection to employees who
had been rendering service for prolonged periods
against substantive and essential posts. The Act,
therefore, cannot be construed or applied in a
manner that arbitrarily excludes a class of
employees, such as the present appellants, who
are discharging identical duties under comparable
conditions. Acceptance of the exclusion sought to
be enforced by the respondent-State would not
only defeat the legislative intent but would also
result in invidious discrimination against a
homogeneous class of workers.
10.23. The State is expected to act as a model
employer and not as a hard-bargaining or
avaricious negotiator. We deem it appropriate to
record our serious disapproval of the manner in
which the respondent-State proceeded to issue
the impugned SRO of 2009. It is an undisputed
position that SRO of 2003 was already in force,
providing for appointments on a contractual basis
under the respondent-State. In that backdrop, the
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 30
subsequent decision of the respondent-State to
promulgate the impugned SRO of 2009 cannot be
regarded as a benign or innocuous exercise. What
was sought to be done was merely to repackage a
substantially similar mode of engagement under a
new nomenclature, namely “appointment on
academic arrangement”, while simultaneously
imposing an artificial ceiling of six years on the
tenure of such appointments.
10.24. To compound the matter, when the
respondent-State did eventually act in the manner
expected of a responsible employer by enacting
the 2010 Act providing for regularisation of
services, it once again carved out an exclusion by
wholly denying appointees engaged on an
academic arrangement basis the benefit of
regularisation. Such a classification rests on
considerations alien to settled constitutional
jurisprudence and the equality mandate. By
creating two categories, one comprising
appointees on an academic arrangement basis
and the other consisting of those engaged on a
contractual, ad hoc or consolidated basis, the
respondent-State has failed to establish any
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 31
reasonable nexus between the classification and
the object sought to be achieved by extending the
benefit of regularisation to the latter category
alone.
10.25. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in
holding that the respondent-State has not only
failed to demonstrate any distinction in the nature
of duties discharged by the appellants, but has,
by engrafting the impugned exception in the 2010
Act, subjected the present appellants to invidious
discrimination, thereby infringing their
fundamental right to equality.
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 2477 of 2025
11. Leave granted.
11.1. The present appeal assails judgment dated
th
27 December, 2024, passed by the High Court in
Writ Petition (C) No. 2535 of 2023, whereby the
High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the
appellant-employees and upheld the order dated
th
4 September, 2023 passed by Central
Administrative Tribunal, Bench, Srinagar in TA
No. 204 of 2021.
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 32
11.2. The appellants in the present case are
aggrieved by the same differential treatment being
accorded by virtue of their appointment being on
academic arrangement basis and thus, the case of
the present appellants is entirely covered by the
reasoning and discussion made by us earlier in
this judgment.
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 5108 of 2023, Civil
Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 5093 of 2023, Civil Appeal @
SLP (C) No. 12238 of 2023 and Civil Appeal @ SLP
(C) No. 2477 of 2025.
OUR CONCLUSIONS: -
12. In light of the foregoing analysis and discussion,
we summarise our conclusions as under: -
I.
Nomenclature is not determinative of
constitutional entitlement. Where employees
appointed on an “academic arrangement” basis
are similarly situated to those engaged on ad
hoc , contractual or consolidated basis in terms
of duties, tenure, conditions of service and mode
of appointment, denial of equal treatment solely
on the basis of nomenclature is impermissible
under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 33
II.
The exclusion under Section 3(b) of the Jammu
and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions)
Act, 2010 does not satisfy the test of reasonable
classification. The said provision lacks an
intelligible differentia and bears no rational
nexus with the object of the Act, which is to
regularize long-standing irregular
appointments, and therefore results in
invidious discrimination qua appointments on
academic arrangement basis.
III. Fulfilment of statutory conditions under Section
5(i) to (v) of the 2010 Act is determinative of
eligibility for regularization. Once such
conditions are satisfied, the nature of the initial
engagement, whether academic arrangement,
ad hoc , contractual or consolidated, ceases to
have any legal relevance.
IV. The second proviso to Section 5 of the 2010 Act
is a beneficial provision and must receive
purposive interpretation. Any construction
which defeats the legislative intent of protecting
employees who subsequently complete the
qualifying service period is constitutionally
unsustainable.
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 34
V.
The State, as a model employer, cannot adopt
artificial classifications to deny statutory
benefits. Repackaging contractual engagements
under a different nomenclature, while denying
regularization, violates the equality mandate
under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
FINAL DIRECTIONS: -
nd
13. Accordingly, the judgments dated 22
th
February, 2023 and 27 December, 2024, passed by
the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at
Jammu in Letter Patent Appeal No. 81 of 2018 (along-
with other connected and analogous appeals) and in
Writ Petition (C) No. 2535 of 2023, respectively, are
hereby set aside.
13.1. It is declared that Section 3(b) of the
Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special
Provisions) Act, 2010, insofar as it excludes
employees appointed on an academic
arrangement basis from consideration for
regularisation despite fulfilment of conditions
under Section 5 of the Act, is unconstitutional and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 35
13.2. The respondent-State is directed to
consider the cases of the appellants for
regularisation in accordance with Section 5 of the
2010 Act, without reference to the nomenclature
of their initial appointment, within a period of 4
weeks from the date of this judgment.
13.3. The benefit of this judgment shall extend
to all similarly situated employees appointed on
an academic arrangement basis who satisfy the
statutory requirements under the 2010 Act.
14. Consequently, the present appeals stand
allowed in aforesaid terms.
15. Pending application(s), if any, are disposed of.
.......................................J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
.......................................J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 09, 2026
CA @ SLP(C) NO.5108 OF 2023 ETC. 36