Academic Arrangement Appointees Are Ineligible for Regularization and Tenure Extension Beyond Statutory Period if Not Appointed by Specified Date.

The petitioner was engaged as a Dental Lab Assistant on an academic arrangement basis in 2014 under SRO 384 of 2009.

His service was extended periodically until 2020, totaling six years.

Upon reaching the six-year cap, he was disengaged via an order dated January 23, 2020.

Though he obtained a status quo order from the High Court, he was eventually disengaged again on October 4, 2023.

He challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which dismissed his plea by relying on Syed Younis v. UT of J&K.

The petitioner moved the High Court, seeking regularization and continuation in service.

1. Whether the petitioner has a legal right to continue in service on an academic arrangement basis beyond the maximum prescribed period of six years.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Abhishek Sharma v. State of J&K.

Rule 4 of the J&K Medical and Dental Education (Appointment on Academic Arrangement Basis) Rules, 2020, which stipulates that academic appointments shall in no case exceed a maximum of six years.

Section 5 of the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, which mandates that for regularization, an appointee must have been in service on the "appointed day" (April 28, 2010).

Precedent of Abhishek Sharma v. State of J&K (2026), which struck down Section 3(b) of the 2010 Act to allow academic arrangement employees to seek regularization, provided they meet the remaining statutory criteria under Section 5.

The Court reasoned that Rule 4 of the 2020 Rules contains an express prohibition against extending academic arrangements beyond six years, a provision the petitioner failed to challenge.

The Court found that although the Supreme Court in Abhishek Sharma removed the bar on academic appointees, it did not waive the mandatory conditions under Section 5 of the 2010 Act.

One such "essential condition" is that the candidate must have been in service on the "appointed day," i.e., April 28, 2010.

Since the petitioner was first appointed in 2014, he post-dates the Act’s commencement and fails to satisfy the statutory requirement for regularization; consequently, he cannot invoke the second proviso of Section 5 to claim a right to continue until seven years of service are completed.

The Court further held that the petitioner is ineligible for regularization under the 2010 Act as he was not in service on the appointed day.

The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal’s decision.