Temporary appointees hold no vested right to continue service after regular recruitment by competent agencies.

The applicants were engaged on an academic arrangement and contractual basis in various non-gazetted capacities (e.g., Record Clerks, Store Keepers, Social Workers) at newly established Government Medical Colleges (GMCs) in Doda, Rajouri, and Kathua

Their engagement orders explicitly stated that the appointments were temporary stop-gap arrangements until regular selections were made by a competent recruiting agency

Subsequently, the Government referred these vacancies to the J&K Service Selection Board (JKSSB) for fast-track regular recruitment

Following the finalization of the select list dated 24.10.2019, the applicants were disengaged in November 2019 to accommodate regularly selected candidates

The applicants challenged the selection process and sought quashing of the select lists, claiming procedural irregularities, lack of transparency in the Selection Committee's constitution under SRO-202 of 2015, and a right to continue in service based on their experience

1. Whether temporary or contractual employees engaged as a stop-gap arrangement acquire a vested or legal right to continue in service or seek regularization after regularly selected candidates are appointed.

2. Whether the recruitment process conducted by the JKSSB was vitiated by procedural irregularities or arbitrary governmental interference sufficient to warrant quashing the select lists.

The court primarily applied the J&K Medical and Dental Education (Appointment on Academic Arrangement Basis) Rules, 2019 (SRO-24 of 2019), which governs temporary appointments in GMCs

It further relied on the principles governing SRO-202 of 2015, which prescribes the procedure for regular recruitment of non-gazetted staff

The court applied the established legal principle that temporary/contractual appointees do not possess an indefeasible right to regularization or continuation once the overriding condition of regular recruitment is met

The court invoked the doctrine of estoppel, noting that candidates who accept temporary terms and furnish undertakings cannot later challenge the termination of those terms upon regular selection

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicants’ appointments were governed by specific contractual terms and statutory rules (SRO-24 of 2019) which mandated their displacement upon the arrival of regular selectees

The court observed that the applicants had furnished undertakings at the time of joining, acknowledging the temporary nature of their service, thereby estopping them from claiming a right to continue

Regarding the challenge to the recruitment process, the Tribunal found that the applicants failed to provide cogent evidence to substantiate allegations of mala fides or procedural flaws in the Selection Committee

Furthermore, the court noted that the applicants had not specifically challenged their individual disengagement orders, making a challenge to the selection list alone legally unsustainable

The Tribunal emphasized that judicial restraint is necessary when third-party rights of regularly selected candidates have intervened in a concluded selection process

The court ruled that temporary arrangements necessarily end upon the appointment of regular candidates

However, as an equitable measure, the Tribunal directed the respondents to grant the applicants "appropriate priority" in future temporary or academic arrangement engagements for similar posts, subject to eligibility and availability, without conferring any vested right

No costs were ordered