In a significant ruling on public employment and equality, the Supreme Court has declared a key provision of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 unconstitutional. The Court held that employees appointed on an “academic arrangement” basis cannot be denied regularisation merely because of the label attached to their appointment.
The judgment came while deciding a batch of civil appeals filed by healthcare workers appointed in government medical colleges in Jammu and Kashmir.
Read also:- Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Against Judges, Says Allegations Based
Background of the Case
The dispute arose after several paramedical staff members, including junior staff nurses and female multipurpose health workers, were appointed between 2011 and 2013 under the Jammu and Kashmir Medical and Dental Education (Appointment on Academic Arrangement Basis) Rules, 2009.
These appointments were temporary and made to ensure that medical colleges continued functioning while regular recruitment was pending.
Later, the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 provided a mechanism for regularising employees appointed on ad-hoc, contractual, or consolidated pay who fulfilled certain conditions, including length of service. However, Section 3(b) of the Act specifically excluded those appointed on an “academic arrangement” basis.
When the government issued an advertisement in 2015 to fill more than 1000 posts through regular recruitment - including the posts already occupied by these workers - the employees approached the High Court seeking regularisation under the 2010 Act.
Read also:- Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Folk Singer Neha Singh Rathore In FIR Over Posts On PM
The High Court dismissed their petitions, ruling that employees appointed under the academic arrangement rules were not eligible for regularisation under the statute.
Challenging this decision, the employees approached the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Appellants’ Submissions
The employees argued that the exclusion created an arbitrary classification. They said they had been working against sanctioned posts for years and were performing the same duties as regular employees.
Their counsel contended that denying them regularisation solely because their appointments were described as “academic arrangement” violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
They also argued that the purpose of the 2010 Act was to protect long-serving employees and regularise irregular appointments.
State’s Stand
The Jammu and Kashmir government opposed the plea, arguing that the law clearly excluded academic arrangement appointments from regularisation.
The State pointed out that the rules governing such appointments expressly stated that the employees would not have any preferential claim to regular recruitment. It also argued that regularisation would be unfair to other candidates who might have applied had the posts been advertised earlier.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Quashes Ombudsman Proceedings Against Village Officer, Says He Is Not
Supreme Court’s Observations
After examining the rules and the statutory framework, the Court found that the distinction between academic arrangement appointments and contractual appointments was largely superficial.
The bench noted that both sets of rules contained similar provisions regarding appointment, termination, and service conditions. The only significant difference was the tenure limit under the academic arrangement rules.
The Court held that classification based solely on nomenclature could not justify denying equal treatment when the nature of duties and conditions of service were essentially the same.
The bench observed:
“Nomenclature is not determinative of constitutional entitlement. Where employees are similarly situated in terms of duties and conditions of service, denial of equal treatment solely on the basis of nomenclature is impermissible.”
The Court further stressed that the State must act as a model employer and cannot create artificial categories to avoid granting statutory benefits.
It also noted that the 2010 Act was intended to regularise long-standing irregular appointments and should not be interpreted in a way that arbitrarily excludes a class of employees performing identical work.
Read also:- Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Termination of Power Board Worker Over Matric Certificate from
Court’s Decision
Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court.
The Court declared that Section 3(b) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 - insofar as it excludes employees appointed on an academic arrangement basis from regularisation - is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The State government has been directed to consider the cases of the appellants for regularisation in accordance with Section 5 of the Act within four weeks, without relying on the nomenclature of their initial appointment.
The Court also clarified that the benefit of the judgment will apply to all similarly placed employees who satisfy the statutory conditions under the Act.
Case Title: Abhishek Sharma vs State of Jammu and Kashmir & Others
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 5108 of 2023 & connected matters
Decision Date: 09 March 2026
