Long-term academic arrangement service constitutes irregular appointment eligible for statutory regularization despite restrictive nomenclature or undertakings.

The petitioner was engaged as a COPA Instructor on an "academic arrangement" basis at ITI Mendhar vide Order No. 1004 of 2007 dated 30.11.2007

Despite the initial engagement being for one session, the petitioner continued to serve for over 12 years against a sanctioned post created in 2008

His case was recommended for regularization by various local authorities, including the Deputy Commissioner Poonch, but the claim was repeatedly rejected by the Director of Technical Education

The respondents contended that the petitioner was not a "contractual" employee under SRO 255 of 2003, but rather an academic arrangement appointee who had executed an affidavit undertaking not to claim regularization

The matter was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu Bench

1. Whether the nature of the petitioner's engagement as an "academic arrangement" excludes him from the purview of the J Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010

2. Whether an undertaking/affidavit executed by an employee can override statutory rights for regularization provided under beneficial legislation

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization after completing more than seven years of continuous service

Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, which mandates the regularization of ad-hoc, contractual, or consolidated appointees after seven years of service

Articles 14 and 16 regarding equal opportunity in public employment

Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) regarding the distinction between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments

Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), which held that long-term continuous service in sanctioned functions demands a fair resolution and that procedural formalities should not perpetually deny substantive rights

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' argument that the "academic arrangement" label automatically disqualified the petitioner from statutory benefits. It held that in service jurisprudence, the substance of engagement—continuity, nature of duties, and departmental control—prevails over nomenclature

The court observed that the State cannot extract long-term service (12 years) to meet perennial institutional needs and then cite the temporary nature of the initial contract to deny regularization

Regarding the petitioner's undertaking, the Tribunal ruled that such affidavits cannot act as a bar against the operation of a statute (the 2010 Act) or the principles of fairness and equity

Following the logic in Jaggo, the Tribunal noted that the petitioner’s appointment was at most "irregular," not "illegal," as it was performed against sanctioned functions, thus qualifying for the one-time regularization measure intended by law

The respondents were directed to: (a) quash the communications rejecting the petitioner’s claim; (b) issue a formal regularization order within 12 weeks; (c) grant consequential service benefits including pay fixation; and (d) count the prior service for eligibility and continuity purposes. Monetary arrears were restricted prospectively.