Nomenclature Cannot Determine Constitutional Entitlement: Supreme Court Strikes Down Exclusion Of ‘Academic Arrangement’ Employees From Regularisation

“Repackaging Contractual Engagements Under Different Names To Deny Regularisation Violates Articles 14 And 16”, Supreme Court has held that employees appointed on an “academic arrangement basis” cannot be excluded from consideration for regularisation merely on the basis of the terminology used for their appointment. The Court ruled that such exclusion under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 results in arbitrary classification and violates the equality guarantees under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta delivered the judgment in Abhishek Sharma v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Others, allowing a batch of civil appeals challenging the exclusion of employees appointed on academic arrangement basis from the benefit of regularisation. The Court set aside the judgments of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh and declared Section 3(b) of the 2010 Act unconstitutional to the extent that it excluded such employees from consideration for regularisation.

Background of the Case

The controversy arose from appointments made under SRO No. 384 of 2009 titled the Jammu and Kashmir Medical and Dental Education (Appointment on Academic Arrangement Basis) Rules, 2009. These rules enabled the State to appoint teaching staff, medical officers, nurses and paramedical personnel in Government Medical Colleges on academic arrangement basis to meet administrative requirements pending regular recruitment.

Subsequently, the State enacted the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 which provided for regularisation of employees appointed on ad hoc, contractual or consolidated basis subject to fulfillment of specified conditions. However, Section 3(b) of the Act expressly excluded employees appointed on an academic arrangement basis from its scope.

The appellants were appointed between 2011 and 2013 as Junior Staff Nurses and Female Multipurpose Health Workers under the 2009 Rules. After several years of service, the State issued an advertisement in 2015 inviting applications for regular recruitment to more than a thousand posts including the posts occupied by the appellants.

Aggrieved by this development, the appellants approached the High Court seeking regularisation under the 2010 Act and also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 3(b) which excluded them from its ambit. The Single Judge dismissed the petitions and the Division Bench affirmed the decision in intra-court appeals, holding that the appellants were not entitled to regularisation under the statute.

The appellants thereafter approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Issue Before the Court

The principal question before the Supreme Court was whether the State could validly classify employees appointed on “academic arrangement basis” as a separate category and exclude them from the benefit of regularisation provided under the 2010 Act.

The Court therefore examined whether such classification satisfied the constitutional requirements of reasonable classification under Article 14.

Equality And Reasonable Classification

The Supreme Court reiterated that Article 14 permits classification only when the classification is based on an intelligible differentia and bears a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the legislation.

Referring to the constitutional principles governing equality, the Court observed:

“Article 14 employs two expressions — equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. Equality before the law entails absence of special privileges for any individual within the territory… equal protection of the laws means that among equals, laws must be equally administered.”

Applying these principles, the Court found that the classification created by Section 3(b) between employees appointed on academic arrangement basis and those appointed on contractual, ad hoc or consolidated basis lacked any rational basis.

The Court noted that a comparative examination of the rules governing contractual appointments and academic arrangement appointments revealed that the provisions were substantially similar in nature.

The Court observed:

“A conjoint reading of the provisions of both the SROs reveals a striking degree of similarity.”

Thus, employees appointed on academic arrangement basis were performing the same functions under similar conditions of service as those appointed on contractual basis.

Nomenclature Cannot Determine Constitutional Entitlement

The Court held that the State cannot deny equal treatment merely by assigning a different nomenclature to a category of employees.

The Court observed:

“Nomenclature is not determinative of constitutional entitlement. Where employees appointed on an ‘academic arrangement’ basis are similarly situated to those engaged on ad hoc, contractual or consolidated basis in terms of duties, tenure and conditions of service, denial of equal treatment solely on the basis of nomenclature is impermissible under Article 14.”

The Court emphasized that equality under the Constitution cannot be defeated by technical labels used in administrative arrangements.

Regularisation Depends On Statutory Conditions

The Supreme Court further held that eligibility for regularisation under the 2010 Act depends on fulfillment of the statutory conditions specified in Section 5 of the Act.

The Court observed:

“Once the conditions stipulated under Section 5(i) to (v) stand satisfied, the appointee becomes entitled to seek regularisation… the nature of the initial engagement would cease to be of determinative relevance.”

Thus, the Court clarified that once an employee satisfies the conditions relating to qualification, appointment against a clear vacancy, and completion of the prescribed period of service, the terminology of appointment cannot be used to deny regularisation.

Beneficial Interpretation Of The Statute

The Court also examined the second proviso to Section 5 of the 2010 Act, which allows employees who had not completed seven years of service on the appointed day to continue until completion of the required period and thereafter seek regularisation.

The Court emphasized that this provision must be interpreted in a manner that advances the legislative intent.

The Court observed:

“The second proviso to Section 5 is a beneficial provision… Any construction which defeats the legislative intent of protecting employees who subsequently complete the qualifying service period is constitutionally unsustainable.”

State As A Model Employer

The Court strongly criticised the State for creating artificial classifications between employees performing identical duties.

The Bench observed that the State had effectively repackaged contractual appointments under a new nomenclature while imposing a six-year ceiling on tenure.

The Court observed:

“The State, as a model employer, cannot adopt artificial classifications to deny statutory benefits.”

The Court concluded that the exclusion created under Section 3(b) resulted in invidious discrimination against employees appointed on academic arrangement basis.

Decision

Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court dated 22 February 2023 and 27 December 2024.

The Court declared:

“Section 3(b) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, insofar as it excludes employees appointed on an academic arrangement basis from consideration for regularisation despite fulfilment of conditions under Section 5 of the Act, is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.”

The Court directed the State to consider the cases of the appellants for regularisation under Section 5 of the Act within four weeks without reference to the nomenclature of their initial appointment. The benefit of the judgment was also extended to all similarly situated employees.

Date of Decision: 09 March 2026