Exclusion of academic arrangement appointees from regularisation benefits under Section 3(b) of 2010 Act is unconstitutional.

The Appellants were appointed as Junior Staff Nurses/Health Workers between 2011 and 2013 under SRO No. 384 of 2009 (2009 Rules), which governed "academic arrangement" appointments in Government Medical Colleges.

In 2010, the State enacted the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 (2010 Act) to regularize ad hoc and contractual employees who completed seven years of service.

However, Section 3(b) of the 2010 Act expressly excluded those on "academic arrangement" from the benefit of regularization.

When the State advertised these posts for regular recruitment in 2015, the Appellants challenged the vires of Section 3(b).

The Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court dismissed their claims, holding that the Appellants had accepted the fixed-term nature of their engagement.

Whether the State was justified in classifying employees on "academic arrangement" as a distinct class under Section 3(b) of the 2010 Act, thereby excluding them from regularization.

Whether Section 3(b) of the 2010 Act violates the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The Court applied the "Doctrine of Reasonable Classification" under Article 14, requiring an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus to the statutory object.

It relied on *State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh* (2025) which holds that while the State may classify, it cannot create artificial distinctions between similarly situated persons.

It further examined the 2009 Rules alongside the 2003 Contractual Appointment Rules, noting they were *pari materia* regarding recruitment methods and service conditions.

The Court also emphasized the "Model Employer" obligations of the State.

The Court found that the duties, qualifications, and selection processes for "academic arrangement" staff were identical to those for "contractual" staff eligible for regularization.

The only distinction was a "repackaged" nomenclature and an artificial six-year tenure ceiling in the 2009 Rules.

The Court reasoned that Section 3(b) failed the twin-test of Article 14 because there was no "intelligible differentia" distinguishing these employees from other contractual workers, nor a rational nexus to the 2010 Act’s object of curing long-standing irregular appointments.

The Court held that once an employee satisfies the residency and qualification criteria under Section 5 of the 2010 Act, the initial nomenclature of the appointment (academic vs. contractual) becomes legally irrelevant.

It declared Section 3(b) of the 2010 Act unconstitutional insofar as it excluded "academic arrangement" employees from regularization.

The Court held that nomenclature is not determinative of constitutional rights.

The State was directed to consider the Appellants for regularization under Section 5 of the 2010 Act within four weeks, extending this benefit to all similarly situated employees.