The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has ruled that a government employee cannot take up foreign employment without prior permission from the competent authority.
In a detailed judgment delivered on February 27, 2026, a Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem set aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had earlier directed Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology (SKUAST), Jammu, to grant post-facto sanction to a faculty member for a job in the United Arab Emirates.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Partly Allows Discharge Plea in 498A Case, Drops Attempt to Homicide Charge
Background of the Case
The case arose after Dr. Ankur Sharma, an Associate Professor at SKUAST-Jammu, applied online in October 2024 for a teaching position at the United Arab Emirates University (UAEU). She later appeared for an online interview and received an offer to serve as an Instructor from January 6, 2025 to July 31, 2028.
However, before any formal approval was granted by the University, she was issued a show cause notice dated December 18, 2024. The notice questioned how she had applied and appeared for the interview without prior sanction from the competent authority.
Challenging this notice, Dr. Sharma approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal quashed the show cause notice and directed the University to grant post-facto approval for her foreign assignment.
Aggrieved by this direction, the University filed a writ petition before the High Court.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Reinstates KSRTC Guard, Says No Termination Without Proper Inquiry and Fair
University’s Stand
The University argued that seeking foreign employment without formal permission violated the applicable service rules.
It contended that under the J&K Civil Service Regulations (CSR), the Leave Rules, and the Conduct Rules, no government employee can undertake other employment-especially abroad-without prior sanction.
The petitioners maintained that granting permission for foreign assignments is a matter of administrative discretion. The Tribunal, they said, had exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively compelling the University to grant approval.
Employee’s Arguments
Dr. Sharma’s counsel argued that her case fell under Schedule XIX of the CSR, which deals with foreign assignments. It was submitted that she had applied for permission and that delays on the part of the University forced her to proceed.
She also relied on Rule 14(b) of the Leave Rules, contending that in exceptional cases, permission to serve elsewhere can be granted. The Tribunal had accepted this reasoning and directed post-facto sanction.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Orders Cancellation of OBC Certificate of Gram Panchayat Pradhan
Court’s Observations
After examining the service regulations, the Bench noted that Schedule XIX classifies foreign assignments into categories. Dr. Sharma’s case, the Court said, fell under the category where a government servant “of his own, manages an offer in a foreign country.”
The Court pointed out that Schedule XIX clearly states that if an employee joins foreign employment without proper permission, it amounts to infringement of the rules and may invite disciplinary action.
The Bench also referred to Rule 10 of the Conduct Rules, which mandates that no government employee shall undertake any other employment without previous sanction.
“The expression ‘except where grant of permission… is considered desirable in any exceptional case’ confers discretion on the employer,” the Court observed, adding that such discretion cannot be converted into an enforceable right by judicial direction.
The judges were clear that the Tribunal’s role is limited. It may examine whether an action is illegal or arbitrary, but it cannot substitute its own decision for that of the employer in matters of administrative discretion.
The Court also remarked that a mere show cause notice does not ordinarily give rise to a cause of action unless it is patently without jurisdiction.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Enhances Accident Compensation to ₹6 Lakh for Court Employee
The Decision
Holding that the Tribunal had “overstepped” by directing grant of post-facto sanction, the High Court allowed the University’s petition.
The order dated February 18, 2025 passed by the Tribunal was set aside.
However, in order to balance equities, the Court directed the University authorities to consider Dr. Sharma’s application for permission afresh and pass a reasoned order within four weeks from the date the judgment is made available.
With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of.
Case Title: Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences & Technology & Ors. v. Dr. Ankur Sharma
Case No.: WP (C) No. 634/2025
Decision Date: February 27, 2026
