Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 241

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Abhishek Sharma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jammu And Kashmir & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5108 of 2023) With Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5093 of 2023) And Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.12238 of 2023) And Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2477 of 2025)
Decided On : 09-03-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anilendra Pandey, AOR Mr. Brajesh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Kanchan Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. Paramhans Sahani, Adv. M/S. Brajesh Pandey & Associates, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. G.M. Kawoosa, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Anilendra Pandey, AOR

The exclusion of employees appointed on an academic arrangement from regularization under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 is unconstitutional, violating Article 14 due to arbitrary classification.

Headnote:(A) Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 - Section 3(b) - Exclusion of employees appointed under academic arrangement from regularization - The court held this exclusion unconstitutional, violating Article 14 of the Constitution, as it creates arbitrary classification without intelligible differentia. (Paras 10.1 to 12)

(B) Employment Law - Regularization of Services - The appellants, appointed under SRO No. 384 of 2009, were denied regularization despite fulfilling statutory conditions under Section 5 of the 2010 Act. The court emphasized the importance of equal treatment for employees performing identical duties. (Paras 12 I-III)

Facts of the case:
The appellants, appointed as Junior Staff Nurses, sought regularization of their services under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, after being engaged on an academic arrangement basis from 2011 to 2013. The High Court dismissed their claims, which led to the present appeals.

Findings of Court:
The exclusion under Section 3(b) of the 2010 Act was found to not satisfy the rational basis required for classification, and it was ruled that appellants were entitled to regularization as they satisfied all necessary conditions.

Issues: The primary issue addressed was whether the exclusion of those appointed on academic arrangement from the benefits of the 2010 Act was legally justifiable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the classification was arbitrary and unreasonable, emphasizing that the nature of initial engagement should not determine entitlement to regularization.

Result: Appeals allowed, and the exclusion provision was declared unconstitutional.

Table of Content
1. summary of relevant facts and background of the case. (Para 2 , 3)
2. identification of the core issue for the court. (Para 5)
3. arguments presented by both parties regarding eligibility for regularization. (Para 6 , 7)
4. court's analysis and findings on prior judgments. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. conclusions regarding regularization and state responsibilities. (Para 12)
6. final order and directions issued by the court. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM NATH, J.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 5108 of 2023, Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 5093 of 2023 and Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 12238 of 2023

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeals call into question the common judgment dated 22nd February, 2023, passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu¹[Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”] in a batch of intra-court appeals²[Letter Patent Appeal Nos. 30, 33, 34, 40, 80, 81, 192, 193 of 2018, LPA No. 76 of 2019, LPA No. 10 of 2020, LPA Nos. 80 and 81 of 2022] along with connected writ petitions³[SWP No. 886 of 2018, Writ Petition (C) Nos. 4286 and 4364 of 2019], whereby the learned Division Bench dismissed the said intra- court appeals and writ petitions and affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge rejecting the appellants’ claim for regularisation of their services.

FACTS OF PRESENT CASES: -

3. The brief facts, in a nutshell, insofar as they are relevant for the disposal of the present appeals, are stated hereinafter: -

3.1. The respondent-State, vide order dated 14th December, 2009, issued SRO No. 384⁴[Hereinafter, referred to as “impugned SRO”] titled “Jammu and Kashmir Medical and Dental Education (Appointment on Academic Arrangement Basis) Rules, 2009”⁵[Hereinafter, referred to as “2009 Rules”]. The said SRO envisaged the appointment of personnels to posts relating to teaching staff, medical officers, nurses, para-medical, para-dental and technical staff in the Government Medical Colleges on academic arrangement basis.

3.2. In the interregnum, the respondent-State, on 29th April, 2010 enacted Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010,⁶[ Hereinafter, referred to as “2010 Act”] which provided for the regularisation of employees appointed on an ad hoc, contractual or consolidated basis. It is pertinent to note that appointments made under the impugned SRO were expressly excluded from the categories eligible to seek regularisation of service under the said enactment.

3.3. Pursuant to the 2009 Rules, the present appellants were appointed thereunder to the posts of Junior Staff Nurse/Female Multipurpose Health Worker during the period between 2011 and 2013.

3.4. On 17th August, 2015 respondent No. 2, namely the Government Medical College, addressed a communication to the respondent-State, requesting that the posts occupied by the appellants be referred to the Service Selection Board for undertaking the regular selection process.

3.5. In this backdrop, the paramedical staff, including the present appellants who had been appointed under the 2009 Rules, submitted a joint representation to respondent No. 2, i.e. the Government Medical College, seeking regularisation of their services and further requesting that their posts not be referred to the Service Selection Board.

3.6. Ultimately, an advertisement dated 1st September, 2015, was issued inviting applications for appointment on a regular basis to 1088 posts, which included the posts occupied by the present appellants.

3.7. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants approached the High Court by filing writ petitions seeking the benefit of regularisation under the 2010 Act. The learned Single Judge, by a common judgment dated 4th May, 2018, dismissed the writ petitions and declined the appellants’ claim for regularisation in terms of the said Act.

3.8. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants preferred intra-court appeals before the High Court assailing the decision of the learned Single Judge. The learned Division Bench, by a common judgment dated