Engagement On Academic Arrangement Basis Is A Distinct Class, Not Eligible For Regularization Under J&K Civil Services Act: High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that lecturers engaged on academic arrangement basis constitute a separate class distinct from those appointed on ad hoc, contractual or consolidated basis against clear vacancies, and are therefore not eligible for regularization under the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010.A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice...
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that lecturers engaged on academic arrangement basis constitute a separate class distinct from those appointed on ad hoc, contractual or consolidated basis against clear vacancies, and are therefore not eligible for regularization under the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the validity of Section 3(b), Section 10(2) and Section 10(2A) of the 2010 Act and seeking directions for regularization of such appointees.
The Court observed “Academic arrangement lecturers constitute a class in themselves. They cannot claim parity with ad hoc, contractual or consolidated appointees engaged against clear vacancies.”
It further said that “The classification under Section 3(b) is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. It has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act of 2010.”
Petitioners, working as collegiate lecturers for several years on academic arrangement, argued that their nature of engagement was substantially similar to ad hoc appointments, and that excluding them from the 2010 Act amounted to discrimination, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
It was contended that the work and duties performed by academic arrangement lecturers are identical to those of regular lecturers, yet the State denies them the benefit of regularization.
The State defended the classification, asserting that academic arrangements are time-bound, contingent, and dependent on student enrolment, unlike contractual or ad hoc appointments made against sanctioned posts. They were not made against clear vacancies, were not part of the regular cadre, and historically drawn from college funds.
The Government also argued that later recruitment policies and amendments like SRO 124/2014 demonstrated that many such lecturers would not qualify for substantive appointments even under prevailing norms.
Rejecting the petitioners' case, the Bench held “The Act of 2010 was a one-time measure meant to deal with ad hoc, contractual and consolidated appointees continuing against clear vacancies for long years. Academic arrangement appointees were never intended to be brought within its fold.”
The Court thus upheld the Tribunal's finding that the petitioners formed a distinct class, and their claim for regularization under the Act was untenable.
Background
The litigation arose from a batch of writ petitions, led by WP(C) No. 416/2024, Syed Tariq Ahmad & Ors v. UT of J&K & Ors, challenging a common judgment dated 13.10.2023 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench. The Tribunal had rejected pleas seeking to (i) declare provisions of the 2010 Act unconstitutional, (ii) direct regularization of academic-arrangement lecturers, and (iii) restrain their replacement by fresh academic arrangements. The High Court has now affirmed the Tribunal's decision.
APPEARANCE:
For Petitioners: Sr. Adv. N.A. Beigh with counsel team
For Respondents: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA
Cause-Title: Syed Tariq Ahmad & ors vs. UT of J&K and ors and Connected Petitions.