Engagement of winter-zone academic-arrangement faculty cannot be curtailed before the included summer vacation.

The applicants were engaged as Academic Arrangement/Guest Faculty for the academic session 2025–2026 pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. DC-HE/2025/AA/1205 dated 18 June 2025, issued under Government Order No. 137-JK(HE) of 2024 dated 1 March 2024.

They were serving in various Winter Zone Government Degree Colleges in Jammu Division.

Clause XVI of the Government Order provided that academic-arrangement faculty in Winter Zone Colleges would be engaged for the academic session excluding winter vacations, while including summer vacations.

By communication dated 29 May 2026, the respondents directed cessation of the applicants’ engagement with effect from 31 May 2026.

During the proceedings, the Tribunal’s interim order dated 12 June 2026 permitted the applicants to continue in service until 31 July 2026.

Whether the respondents could terminate the applicants’ academic arrangement with effect from 31 May 2026, notwithstanding Clause XVI of Government Order No. 137-JK(HE) of 2024, which included the summer vacation for faculty serving in Winter Zone Colleges?

Whether the applicants were entitled to continuation of their academic arrangement and remuneration from 1 June 2026 to 31 July 2026 for the academic session 2025–2026?

Whether the applicants were entitled to automatic continuation in future academic sessions, regularisation, or restraint against recruitment for the posts concerned?

The Tribunal applied Government Order No. 137-JK(HE) of 2024, particularly Clause XVI, which governs the duration of Academic Arrangement/Guest Faculty engagements and expressly includes summer vacations in the engagement period of Winter Zone Colleges.

The Tribunal further applied the principle that an administrative communication cannot override or introduce a condition contrary to the governing Government Order under which the appointments were made.

It also relied on Aakriti Manhas & Ors. v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr., O.A. No. 957/2025, decided on 29 July 2026, for the principle that institutional vacation is distinct from cessation of engagement and cannot be treated as an artificial break where the engagement legally continues.

Past contractual or academic-arrangement service, however, does not create an automatic right to future engagement or regularisation, and the employer remains entitled to undertake recruitment in accordance with law.

The applicants’ engagements were expressly made under Government Order No. 137-JK(HE) of 2024, and the advertisement itself incorporated that framework.

Since the applicants served in Winter Zone Colleges, Clause XVI excluded only winter vacations and included summer vacations in the academic arrangement.

The respondents therefore could not treat 31 May 2026 as the terminal date merely through the impugned communication, in the absence of any valid amendment or supersession of Clause XVI.

The Tribunal held that continuation until 31 July 2026 was not a fresh engagement but a continuation of the existing academic arrangement for the same academic session; consequently, remuneration was payable for the period of continued service from 1 June to 31 July 2026.

However, the governing framework did not confer any right to automatic engagement in later academic sessions, regularisation, or protection against lawful recruitment and selection.

Communication No. WCP/NP/2026/391–92 dated 29 May 2026 was quashed to the extent that it directed cessation of the applicants’ engagement from 31 May 2026.

The interim order dated 12 June 2026 was made absolute, and the applicants were held entitled to be treated as continuing in their respective academic arrangements up to 31 July 2026 for the academic session 2025–2026.

The respondents were directed to release the admissible remuneration for the period from 1 June 2026 to 31 July 2026 within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The claims for automatic future engagement, regularisation, and an absolute restraint on recruitment were not granted.

The Original Application and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of without an order as to costs.