Provisional contractual engagement contingent on security clearance can be cancelled ab initio upon an adverse report without a full enquiry; however, withholding wages for the period actually worked is unconstitutional under Article 23 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER(ORAL)

1) The petitioner through the medium of present petition has challenged Order No.630-GMCA of 2025 dated 30.10.2025, whereby his provisional engagement as Senior Resident has been cancelled. The petitioner has also sought a direction upon the respondents, in particular respondent No.5, to reinstate him along with all monetary and consequential service benefits. A further direction commanding respondent No.8 to disburse and release the legitimately earned wages/salary of the petitioner, has also been sought.

2) As per case of the petitioner, pursuant to Advertisement Notice No.05-GMC (R&I) of 2024 dated 27.06.2024 and his participation in the selection process, the petitioner got selected and consequently engaged as Senior Resident in the Department of General Medicine, GMC, Anantnag, on academic arrangement basis under S.O. 364 of 2020 dated 27.11.2020 for a period of one year extendable upto maximum of three years. The tenure of the petitioner was to expire on 14.08.2025. However, the petitioner continued to discharge his duties as Senior Resident beyond 14.08.2025. Ultimately, on 30.10.2025, the impugned order came to be issued by respondent No.5 whereby his engagement as Senior Resident has been cancelled ab initio, on the ground of adverse security report from Criminal Investigation Department (CID). It has been submitted that the salary due to the petitioner from 02.09.2024 to 30.10.2025, during which period he actually worked with the respondents, has not been paid to him

3) The petitioner has challenged the impugned action of the respondents on the grounds that as per Rule 4(2) of S.O. 364 of 2020 dated 27.11.2020, services of an appointee are terminable before the expiry of tenure with one month’s notice from either side or on payment of one month’s salary in leu of notice by the appointing authority but in the instant case, the said Rule has not been adhered to by the respondents. It has been submitted that because the petitioner was allowed to function beyond the expiry of his tenure until the passing of the impugned order, as such, it is deemed that his tenure was extended. Therefore, without adhering to Rule 4(2) of S.O. 364 of 2020 , his services could not have been terminated. It has been further contended that the respondents have flouted the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as prior to cancelling his engagement, no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner. It has been further contended that termination of the petitioner on the grounds of security clearance is stigmatic in nature, as such, without holding an enquiry in respect of alleged adverse security report, engagement of the petitioner could not have been terminated. It has been further contended that the action of the respondents is arbitrary in nature. It has been contended that withholding of legitimately earned salary of the petitioner amounts to violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India.

4) The respondents have filed their reply to the writ petition, in which it has been submitted that the petitioner’s engagement and release of salary was subject to the report of character and antecedents from CID regarding which the petitioner had sworn an affidavit and furnished the same to the respondents. It has been submitted that pursuant to the report regarding character and antecedents received from the CID, the petitioner was relieve