The Supreme Court has held that employees appointed on “academic arrangement” basis in Jammu & Kashmir cannot be denied the benefit of regularisation merely because of the nomenclature of their appointment, declaring the exclusion contained in the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 unconstitutional.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta ruled that the State cannot create artificial classifications between employees performing identical duties merely by labeling one category as “academic arrangement” appointees while extending regularisation benefits to those appointed on contractual, ad-hoc or consolidated basis. The Court held that such a distinction violates the equality guarantee under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The case arose from a batch of appeals challenging a judgment of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh which had refused to grant regularisation to paramedical employees appointed between 2011 and 2013 under the Jammu and Kashmir Medical and Dental Education (Appointment on Academic Arrangement Basis) Rules, 2009. The employees had approached the court after the government initiated a process to fill their posts through regular recruitment despite their long service in the institutions.
Under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, the State had provided for regularisation of employees appointed on ad-hoc, contractual or consolidated basis, subject to certain conditions. However, Section 3(b) of the Act expressly excluded employees appointed on “academic arrangement” basis from its scope.
The appellants argued that the exclusion was arbitrary since they had been appointed against sanctioned posts through a selection process and had been discharging duties identical to those performed by regular employees and other contractual appointees. They contended that the classification created by the Act had no rational basis and resulted in discrimination.
Opposing the plea, the State maintained that the appointments were purely temporary and governed by the 2009 Rules which explicitly stated that such appointees would have no preferential claim for regular appointment. It was further argued that the employees had accepted these conditions at the time of their engagement.
Examining the statutory framework, the Supreme Court noted that the provisions governing contractual appointments under the 2003 rules and those governing “academic arrangement” appointments under the 2009 rules were substantially similar in terms of conditions of service, tenure, termination and agreements executed with the government. The only significant difference was that the 2009 rules placed a ceiling of six years on such engagements.
The Court observed that the State had effectively repackaged contractual engagement under a different nomenclature while denying those employees the benefit of regularisation that was extended to other similarly placed appointees. Such a classification, the Court held, lacked an intelligible differentia and bore no rational nexus with the object of the 2010 Act, which was to regularise long-standing irregular appointments.
Holding the exclusion unconstitutional, the Bench declared that once the statutory conditions for regularisation under Section 5 of the Act are fulfilled, the nature or nomenclature of the initial appointment ceases to have legal relevance. Employees appointed on academic arrangement basis who satisfy those conditions must therefore be considered for regularisation.
The Court emphasised that the State is expected to act as a model employer and cannot resort to artificial classifications to deny statutory benefits. It further held that repackaging contractual engagements under different labels while withholding regularisation violates the equality mandate under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Setting aside the High Court judgments, the Supreme Court declared Section 3(b) of the 2010 Act unconstitutional to the extent it excluded employees appointed on academic arrangement basis from consideration for regularisation. The Court directed the State to consider the cases of the appellants for regularisation within four weeks and clarified that the benefit of the judgment would extend to all similarly situated employees who satisfy the statutory requirements under the Act.
