O R D E R (FINAL)

JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]

01. Through the medium of the instant Original Application, the applicants seek quashing of Advertisement Notification No. 05-GMC of 2026 dated 09.03.2026, to the extent it seeks to advertise the posts of Technical Assistants/Technicians allegedly held by the applicants, along with a direction to the respondents to regularize their services in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhishek Sharma vs. Union Territory of J&K & Others (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 5108 of 2023, decided on 09.03.2026), in terms of The Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Special Provisions) Act 2010, and to restrain the respondents from displacing or replacing the applicants till their claim for regularization is duly considered and finalized, and further respondents be restrained from re-advertising or filing up the posts held by the applicants in any manner prejudicial to the rights of the applicants.

02. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are presently working against the posts of Technical Assistants/Public Technicians on academic arrangement basis under S.O. 364 of 2020 and have been continuously discharging their duties without any break since their initial engagement. It is contended that such engagements were made pursuant to a due process of selection against notified posts and strictly on merit, and therefore, the applicants cannot be treated as casual or backdoor entrants so as to be replaced at the whims of the respondents.

03. It is further submitted that the applicants have rendered long and continuous service, in some cases exceeding several years, and have acquired substantial experience in the functioning of the institution. It is argued that their engagement is not ad hoc in the casual sense but is structured under statutory rules, and therefore, their displacement by another set of similarly situated contractual or academic arrangement employees would be wholly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

04. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the law on the subject is well settled that one set of contractual or academic arrangement employees cannot be replaced by another set of similarly situated employees. It is contended that the impugned advertisement, if allowed to be given effect to, would result in impermissible replacement, thereby rendering the action of the respondents arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law.

05. It is further argued that the applicants have continued in service through successive extensions, and have acquired a legitimate expectation to continuation, particularly when the posts against which they are working are neither abolished nor discontinued.

06. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed considerable reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhishek Sharma & Ors. v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. (2026 INSC 220), to contend that employees appointed on academic arrangement basis are entitled to consideration for regularization under the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, and that exclusion of such employees under Section 3(b) of Act (ibid) has been declared unconstitutional.

07. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement, the respondents were under a legal obligation to initiate the process for regularization of the applicants, instead of re-advertising the posts and attempting to displace them. It is argued that the impugned action is in direct conflict with the binding law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

08. Learned counsel further submits that the applicants are squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment, Abhishek Sharma & Ors( supra), as they have been appointed against available posts, have rendered continuous service, and fulfill all eligibility conditions prescribed under the Act of 2010, and therefore, their right to be considered for reg