J U D G M E N T

Per Sanjeev Kumar:- J

1. The petitioner invokes the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this court to throw challenge to an order and judgment dated 23rd of May 2025 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench, Srinagar [“the Tribunal”] in OA No. 852 of 2023 titled Aarif Sidiq Rah vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. whereby the OA filed by the writ petitioner has been dismissed by placing reliance upon the judgment dated 4th of September 2023 passed by the Tribunal in Syed Younis vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (T.A No.204/2021).

2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner was initially engaged as a Dental Lab Assistant along with other candidates on academic arrangement basis vide order No 35-GDC of 2014 dated 1st of February 2014 issued by the Principal, Government Dental College and Hospital, Srinagar. This engagement of the petitioner was pursuant to a selection process carried out as per SRO 384 of 2009 read with SRO 409 of 2013. The services of the petitioner were thereafter extended from time to time.

3. Vide order No. ME/NG/187/2016 dated 13th of February 2017, the academic arrangement of the petitioner against the post of Dental Lab Assistant was extended subject to terms and conditions of SRO 384 of 2009 read with SRO 409 of 2013. In the year 2018, the Principal Government Dental College Srinagar issued order No. 54-GDC of 2018 dated 3rd of February 2018 and extended the period of academic arrangement of the petitioner for a further period of one year from the date of expiry of previous order or till the post were filled up by competent authority on regular basis whichever was earlier. This was subject to execution of a fresh agreement as envisaged under rules.

4. Vide order No. 98-GDC of 2019 dated 22nd of March 2019, one more extension for a period of one year which was the last and the sixth extension was granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 1st of February 2019.

5. On completion of the maximum period of six years on academic arrangement, the petitioner was disengaged vide order dated 23rd of January 2020. Anticipating that his service would be brought to an end after the expiry of last extension, petitioner filed SWP No. 126/2020 seeking inter alia a direction to the respondents to regularise his services. This Court vide interim order passed on 23rd of January 2020 directed the maintenance of status quo with regard to the services of the petitioner. It seems that before this order could be served upon the respondents, the respondent had already issued the order on the same date i.e., 23rd of January 2020 dispensing with the services of the petitioner.

6. While the interim order dated 23rd of January 2020 passed in WP(C) No. 126/2020 (TA No. 3568/2021) was continuing, the respondents vide order No. 559-GDC of 2023 dated 4th October 2023 disengaged the petitioner from the services with immediate effect. This order of disengagement dated 4th October 2023 was challenged by the petitioner in OA No. 852 of 2023 which has been dismissed by the Tribunal in terms of the order and judgment impugned in this petition.

7. As stated above, the Tribunal placed reliance upon the judgment of Syed Younis (supra) and held that the petitioner had no right to continue on academic arrangement beyond a maximum period of six years. The impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is assailed by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the Tribunal has not appreciated that the petitioner was entitled to continue to remain in service on academic arrangement till the post held by him was filled up on regular basis in accordance with rules. It was argued by Mr. Dar that the judgment passed by the Tribunal in Syed Yunis case was subsequently modified and merged in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 5108 of 2023 titled Abhishek Sharma vs State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. decided on 9th of March 2026.

8. It is argued by Mr.