Holding

Section 3(b) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, is unconstitutional as it fails the test of reasonable classification and violates Article 14, thereby entitling employees appointed on an academic arrangement basis to regularisation under Section 5.

Summary

The appellants were appointed as junior staff nurses on an "academic arrangement" basis under the 2009 SRO, and later sought regularisation under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, which excluded such appointments via Section 3(b). The State argued that the exclusion was valid because the appellants had consented to the terms of the SRO and were not entitled to regularisation. The Supreme Court examined whether the classification satisfied the constitutional test of reasonable classification under Articles 14 and 16, focusing on intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the Act's purpose of regularising long‑standing irregular appointments. It found that the appellants performed duties identical to those of contractual, ad‑hoc, or consolidated employees and that the nomenclature alone could not justify denial of benefits. Consequently, the Court held Section 3(b) unconstitutional, directing the State to regularise the appellants in accordance with Section 5 of the Act, and set aside the High Court judgments.

Issues considered

Whether Section 3(b) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, which excludes employees appointed on an academic arrangement basis from regularisation, violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether the classification under Section 3(b) satisfies the test of reasonable classification – i.e., existence of intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the object of the Act.
Whether the nature of the initial appointment (academic arrangement) is relevant after the employee fulfills the conditions of Section 5 for regularisation.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16
Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010s. 3(b), s. 5(i), s. 5(v)

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether the respondent-State was justified in law in classifying the present appellants, who were engaged on an academic arrangement basis under the impugned SRO No. 384 titled “Jammu and Kashmir Medical and Dental Education (Appointment on Academic Arrangement Basis) class u/s.3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, and thereby excluding them from the benefit of regularisation contemplated under the said enactment. Headnotes† Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 – ss.3(b), 5(v)

Subjects

Section 3(b) unconstitutionalreasonable classificationArticle 14Article 16regularisationacademic arrangementJammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Actequality principlemodel employercontractual appointmentSRO 2009SRO 2003

Judgment

[2026] 3 S.C.R. 335 : 2026 INSC 220

Abhishek Sharma
v.
The State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 3332 of 2026)
09 March 2026
[Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the respondent-State was justified in law in classifying
the present appellants, who were engaged on an academic
arrangement basis under the impugned SRO No. 384 titled “Jammu
and Kashmir Medical and Dental Education (Appointment on
Academic Arrangement Basis) Rules, 2009”, as a distinct class u/s.3
of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act,
2010, and thereby excluding them from the benefit of regularisation
contemplated under the said enactment.

Headnotes†
Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act,
2010 – ss.3(b), 5(v) – Constitution of India – Arts.14, 16 –
s.3(b), if unconstitutional and violative of Art.14 – Appellants
engaged on an academic arrangement basis under the
impugned SRO No. 384 of 2009 were classified as a distinct
class u/s.3 of the 2010 Act by the respondent-State and
excluded from the benefit of regularisation under the 2010
Act which provided for the regularisation of employees
appointed on an ad hoc, contractual or consolidated basis –
Whether the classification engrafted u/s.3(b) of the 2010 Act
offends the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III
of the Constitution – Whether the criterion adopted by the
State to treat the appellants differently withstands scrutiny
in the eyes of law, or whether the differentia sought to be
carved out offends the equality principles enshrined in the
Constitution:
Held: Nomenclature is not determinative of constitutional
entitlement – Where employees appointed on an “academic
arrangement” basis are similarly situated to those engaged on

* Author
336 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

ad hoc, contractual or consolidated basis in terms of duties, tenure,
conditions of service and mode of appointment, denial of equal
treatment solely on the basis of nomenclature is impermissible
u/Art.14 of the Constitution of India – The exclusion u/s.3(b) of the
2010 Act does not satisfy the test of reasonable classification – It
lacks an intelligible differentia and bears no rational nexus with
the object of the Act, which is to regularize long-standing irregular
appointments, and therefore results in invidious discrimination
qua appointments on academic arrangement basis – Fulfilment of
statutory conditions u/s.5(i) to (v) of the 2010 Act is determinative
of eligibility for regularization – Once such conditions are
satisfied, the nature of the initial engagement, whether academic
arrangement, ad hoc, contractual or consolidated, ceases to
have any legal relevance – The second proviso to s.5 of the
2010 Act is a beneficial provision and must receive purposive
interpretation – 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, cannot adopt artificial classifications to deny
statutory benefits – Repackaging contractual engagements under
a different nomenclature, while denying regularization, violates the
equality mandate u/Arts.14 and 16 – Judgments passed by the
High Court set aside – s.3(b) of the 2010 Act, insofar as it excludes
employees appointed on an academic arrangement basis from
consideration for regularisation despite fulfilment of conditions
u/s.5 of the Act, is unconstitutional and violative of Art.14 of the
Constitution – Respondent-State to consider the cases of the
appellants for regularisation in accordance with s.5 of the 2010 Act,
without reference to the nomenclature of their initial appointment –
Jammu and Kashmir Contractual Appointment Rules, 2003.
[Paras 12, 13.1, 13.2, 13.3]

Jammu and Kashmir Medical and Dental Education
(Appointment on Academic Arrangement Basis) Rules, 2009 –
Jammu and Kashmir Contractual Appointment Rules, 2003
(SRO of 2003) – State to act as a model employer and not as
a hard-bargaining negotiator:
Held: State is expected to act as a model employer and not as a
hard-bargaining or avaricious negotiator – The manner in which
the respondent-State proceeded to issue the impugned SRO of
2009, disapproved – Undisputedly, SRO of 2003 was already in
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 337

Abhishek Sharma v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.

force, providing for appointments on a contractual basis under the
respondent-State – Thus, subsequent decision of the respondent-
State to promulgate the impugned SRO of 2009 was not a benign
or innocuous exercise – What was sought to be done was merely to
repackage a substantially similar mode of engagement under a new
nomenclature, namely “appointment on academic arrangement”,
while simultaneously imposing an artificial ceiling of six years on
the tenure of such appointments – To compound the matter, when
the respondent-State did eventually act in the manner expected
of a responsible employer by enacting the 2010 Act providing for
regularisation of services, it once again carved out an exclusion by
wholly denying appointees engaged on an academic arrangement
basis the benefit of regularisation – Such a classification rests
on considerations alien to settled constitutional jurisprudence
and the equality mandate – By creating two categories, one
comprising appointees on an academic arrangement basis and
the other consisting of those engaged on a contractual, ad hoc or
consolidated basis, the respondent-State has failed to establish
any reasonable nexus between the classification and the object
sought to be achieved by extending the benefit of regularisation
to the latter category alone. [Paras 10.23, 10.24]
Jammu and Kashmir Medical and Dental Education
(Appointment on Academic Arrangement Basis) Rules, 2009
vis-à-vis Jammu and Kashmir Contractual Appointment Rules,
2003 (regulating appointments of a contractual nature) – Rule
4(1) of SRO No. 384 of 2009 (the impugned SRO) and Rule
4(1) of SRO No. 255 of 2003 (the 2003 Contractual Rules) –
Discussed. [Paras 10.11-10.14]

Constitution of India – Art.14 – When violated:
Held: Art.14 of the Constitution does not fetter the power of the
State to frame classifications, for equals alone are entitled to
equal treatment – Persons who are not similarly situated cannot
claim parity – However, the said principle does not confer upon
the State an unfettered licence to carve out artificial distinctions
within a class of persons who are otherwise similarly situated –
Any such artificial or unreasonable classification would strike at
the very core of the right to equality and violate the mandate of
Art.14 – For a classification to withstand constitutional scrutiny, two
conditions are required to be satisfied – First, there must exist an
338 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

intelligible differentia, namely, a rational and discernible basis which
distinguishes one group of persons from another, founded on a
real and relevant criterion and in the absence of such a yardstick,
the differentiation would be bereft of any rational foundation and
would, therefore, be unreasonable – Second, the differentia so
adopted, being the basis of the classification, must bear a rational
nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the classification.
[Paras 10.8, 10.9]

Case Law Cited
State of Punjab and Others v. Davinder Singh and Others [2024]
8 SCR 1321 : (2025) 1 SCC 1 – followed.
Anjum Kadari and Another v. Union of India and Others [2024] 11
SCR 365 : (2025) 5 SCC 53 – referred to.

List of Acts
Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010;
Constitution of India.

List of Keywords
Section 3 (b), Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special
Provisions) Act, 2010 unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of
Constitution of India; Test of reasonable classification; Section 3
(b), Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions)
Act, 2010 lacks intelligible differentia; No rational nexus with the
object of the Act; Section 5, Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services
(Special Provisions) Act, 2010; Jammu and Kashmir Medical and
Dental Education (Appointment on Academic Arrangement Basis)
Rules, 2009; Jammu and Kashmir Contractual Appointment Rules,
2003; Employees appointed on an “academic arrangement” basis
similarly situated to employees engaged on ad hoc, contractual
or consolidated basis; Eligibility for regularization; Employees
appointed on an “academic arrangement”; Employees engaged
on ad hoc, contractual or consolidated basis; Regularisation of
employees appointed on ad hoc, contractual or consolidated basis;
Appointments of a contractual nature; Junior Staff Nurse/Female
Multipurpose Health Worker; Purposive interpretation; State a model
employer; Regularization denied; Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India; Repackaging contractual engagements
under different nomenclature.
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 339

Abhishek Sharma v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3332 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.02.2023 of the High Court
of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu in LPA No. 81 of 2018
With
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 5093, 12238 of 2023 and
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2477 of 2025

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner(s):
Dr. Rajiv Nanda, Mrs. V. Mohana, Sr. Advs., Anilendra Pandey,
Sandeep, Brajesh Pandey, Kanchan Kumar Jha, Gurmeet Singh,
M/s. Brajesh Pandey & Associates.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, G.M.Kawoosa, Anupriya Srivastava,
Ms. Manisha Chava, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Anilendra Pandey.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

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 in a batch of intra-court appeals2 along
with connected writ petitions3, 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.

1 Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.
2 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.
3 SWP No. 886 of 2018, Writ Petition (C) Nos. 4286 and 4364 of 2019.
340 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 titled “Jammu and Kashmir Medical and
Dental Education (Appointment on Academic Arrangement
Basis) Rules, 2009”5. 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 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.

4 Hereinafter, referred to as “impugned SRO”.
5 Hereinafter, referred to as “2009 Rules”.
6 Hereinafter, referred to as “2010 Act”.
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 341

Abhishek Sharma v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.

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 22nd February, 2023, dismissed the
intra-court appeals along with the connected writ petitions,
holding that the appellants were not entitled to regularisation
under the 2010 Act.
4. It is in these circumstances that the appellants have approached
this Court.

ISSUE BEFORE THIS COURT: -
5. The issue that, therefore, arises for our consideration is whether
the respondent-State was justified in law in classifying the present
appellants, who were engaged on an academic arrangement basis
under the impugned SRO No. 384 of 2009, as a distinct class
under Section 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special
Provisions) Act, 2010, and thereby excluding them from the benefit
of regularisation contemplated under the said enactment.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:
6. Dr. Rajiv Nanda and Mrs. V. Mohana, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants, vehemently assailed the
impugned judgment of the High Court, contending, inter alia, as
follows: -
6.1. That Section 9(b) of the 2010 Act expressly excludes persons
appointed on an “academic arrangement” basis from its purview,
thereby creating an arbitrary and unjustified classification
between the appellants and other similarly situated employees
engaged on an ad hoc, contractual or consolidated basis.
342 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

It was contended that there exists no intelligible differentia
distinguishing the appellants from such categories, nor any
rational nexus between the said classification and the object
sought to be achieved by the Act.
6.2. That the very object of the 2010 Act was to cure and regularise
long-standing irregular appointments and to extend legal
protection to employees who had been rendering service for
considerable periods against substantive and essential posts.
6.3. That the appellants were appointed during the period 2011-
2012 against clear and sanctioned vacancies, pursuant to a
duly conducted, transparent selection process undertaken after
verification of their eligibility, qualifications and experience in
accordance with the applicable recruitment rules. It was further
contended that the appellants have continuously discharged
perennial and essential functions for a period exceeding a decade.
6.4. That the appellants have been discharging duties identical in
nature, responsibility and continuity to those performed by regular
employees, and that their functions are indispensable to the
efficient functioning of the institutions under the respondent-State.
6.5. That the issuance of a fresh advertisement for the very posts
presently occupied by the appellants was arbitrary, unreasonable
and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India7.
It was contended that the respondent-State, having extracted
perennial services from the appellants over several years, could
not, without any justifiable basis, seek to displace them through
a fresh selection process.
On these premises, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellants urged that the present appeals merit acceptance and that
the impugned judgment of the High Court be set aside.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-STATE: -
7. Per contra, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, stoutly opposed the
submissions advanced by the appellants and advanced the following
submissions: -

7 Hereinafter, referred to as “Constitution”.
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 343

Abhishek Sharma v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.

7.1. That Section 3 of the 2010 Act was applicable only to specified
categories of appointees who fulfilled the statutory cut-off
conditions, and since the appellants were engaged on an
academic arrangement basis, they did not fall within the ambit
of the said provision so as to claim regularisation thereunder.
7.2. That the proviso to Rule 4 of the impugned SRO unequivocally
stipulates that candidates appointed thereunder shall not have
any preferential claim to regular appointment through the normal
process of recruitment.
7.3. That the appellants had furnished affidavits undertaking to abide
by the terms and conditions of the impugned SRO, and thus,
prior to joining service on an academic arrangement basis,
they had voluntarily accepted the conditions governing their
engagement. Having consciously assented to the said Rules,
the appellants, it was contended, are estopped from questioning
the consequences flowing therefrom.
7.4. That any regularisation of the appellants’ services would operate
to the prejudice of other eligible candidates, who may have
refrained from applying on the legitimate expectation that the
appointments were purely temporary and would subsist only
until the regular recruitment process was undertaken.
7.5. That it is a settled position of law that temporary, contractual
or ad hoc engagement does not confer any vested right to
regularisation, and that regularisation cannot be claimed in
derogation of, or contrary to, the governing statutory rules.
On these grounds, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing
for the respondent-State submitted that the present appeals preferred
by the appellants are devoid of merit and, accordingly, deserve to
be dismissed.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION: -
8. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
both parties and have carefully perused the material placed on record.
9. While dismissing the intra-court appeals preferred by the present
appellants and affirming the order of the learned Single Judge, the
learned Division Bench recorded the following findings: -
344 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

i. That the learned Single Judge rejected the appellants’ claim
for regularization under the 2010 Act on the ground that the
said statute applied only to appointments made up to 29th April,
2010, being the appointed date under the Act.
ii. That the Rules under which the appellants were appointed
were framed with the object of ensuring that the functioning of
the Medical and Dental Colleges did not suffer on account of
delays in the regular recruitment process.
iii. That the appellants were fully conscious of the condition that
they would not be entitled to any preferential claim for regular
appointment through the normal process of selection, and
therefore could not subsequently seek regularization.
iv. That even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the
appellants could be treated as contractual employees, their
engagement was for a limited duration and it could not be
said that the respondent-State had utilized their services for
an unduly prolonged period.
10. At the very threshold, we find ourselves unable to concur with the
reasoning adopted by both the courts below. The High Court failed
to advert to the correct position of law. Once a specific challenge
was mounted by the present appellants to the vires of the 2010
Act, on the ground that the same infringed the fundamental rights
guaranteed under the Constitution, it was incumbent upon the High
Court to undertake a substantive examination as to whether the
impugned provisions satisfied the constitutional threshold. Instead,
the provisions were upheld as they stood, without any meaningful
scrutiny or analysis as to their compatibility with the constitutional
scheme. It is this perfunctory and truncated approach adopted by the
courts below that has necessitated our examination of the validity
of the challenge raised before us.
10.1. This Court, vide order dated 23rd June, 2023, passed in Civil
Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 12238 of 2023, directed
that status quo be maintained with respect to the appellants
and all other similarly placed employees. Consequently, the
appellants have continued in the service of the respondent-
State throughout the pendency of the present lis.
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 345

Abhishek Sharma v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.

10.2. The appellants were appointed during the period between
2011 and 2013 under SRO No. 384. The respondent-State
enacted the 2010 Act, which provided for the regularisation of
employees appointed on an ad hoc, contractual or consolidated
basis. The relevant provisions of the said enactment, insofar
as they bear upon the controversy in question, are extracted
hereinbelow: -
“. . .
3. Application of the Act.
The provisions of this Act shall apply to such posts
under the Government as are held by any person
having been appointed on ad hoc or contractual
basis including those appointed on consolidated
pay provided that such appointments have been
made against the clear vacancies, but shall not
apply to: –
(a) . . .
(b) persons appointed on tenure posts co-
terminus with the life of the project or Scheme
of the State or Central Government, as the
case may be, and those appointed on
academic arrangement for a fixed term in
any Government Department ;

. . .
5. Regularization of ad hoc or contractual or
consolidated appointees. –
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in
any law for the time being in force or any judgment
or order of any court or tribunal, the ad hoc or
contractual or consolidated appointees referred to
in section 3 shall be regularized on fulfilment of the
following conditions, namely: –
(i) that he has been appointed against a clear
vacancy or post;
(ii) that he continues as such on the appointed
day;
346 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(iii) that he possessed the requisite qualification
and eligibility for the post on the date of his
initial appointment on ad hoc or contractual
or consolidated basis as prescribed under the
recruitment rules governing the service or post;
(iv) that no disciplinary or criminal proceedings
are pending against him on the appointed day;
and
(v) that he has completed seven years of service
as such on the appointed day:
Provided that the regularization of the eligible ad
hoc or contractual or consolidated appointees under
this Act shall have effect only from the date of such
regularization, irrespective of the fact that such
appointees have completed more than seven years
of service on the appointed day or thereafter but
before such regularization:
Provided further that any ad hoc or contractual or
consolidated appointee who has not completed
seven years’ service on the appointed day shall
continue as such till completion of seven years
and shall thereafter be entitled to regularization
under this Act.
. . .”
(emphasis supplied)

Accordingly, Section 3 of the 2010 Act expressly excludes from
its ambit persons appointed on an academic arrangement for
a fixed tenure in any Government Department. By operation of
Section 3(b) of the said Act, the respondent-State has sought
to justify its policy decision of treating the present appellants
as a separate category and denying them the benefit of
regularisation under the 2010 Act.
10.3. The said provision was assailed by the present appellants by
filing writ petitions before the High Court, wherein a specific
prayer was made for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring
Section 3(b) of the 2010 Act, insofar as it excluded persons
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 347

Abhishek Sharma v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.

appointed on an academic arrangement for a fixed term in
any Government Department, as ultra vires the Constitution.
The reliefs sought by the appellants in the writ petitions before
the High Court were, accordingly, as follows: -
“a) Certiorari so as to set aside and quash letter
No. AHJ/ 2015/2014 dated 17-08-2015 to the extent
it refers the posts held by the petitioners to SSRB
with a consequential direction to quash the resultant
advertisement Notice issued by SSRB bearing No.05
of 2015 dated 0109-2015 issued by respondent No.6
upto the extent of advertising the posts of FMPHW/
Junior Grade Nurse (Item No.264 and Item No.267).
b) Certiorari/Mandamus declaring part of Section
3(b) of Civil Services Special Provision Act, 2010 to
the extent of providing those appointed on academic
arrangement for a fixed term in any Government
Department as ultra-vires the constitution and violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and quashing
the same.
c) Further writ of mandamus directing and commanding
the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue
within the Proviso 2 of Section 5 of the Civil Services
Special Provision Act, 2010 to complete seven years
of their service and submit their cases to Empowered
Committee for regularization within the provision of
said Act after completion of seven years.
d) Writ of prohibition restraining the respondents
1, 2, 5 and 6 from filling up the posts held by the
petitioners and particularly restraining respondent
No.5 and 6 from Initiating any further selection
process in respect of the posts advertised at item
No.264 and Item No-267.
e) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus declaring
the provision of SRO 384 of 2009 dated 14-12-2009
is so far as it excludes the petitioners from seeking
regularization as Female Multipurpose Health
Worker, Junior/ Senior Staff Nurse be declared as
348 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

unconstitutional and in violation to the mandate of
Article 39 -D of the Constitution of India.”
10.4. The parameters on which the validity of a legislative enactment
may be assailed have been consistently reiterated by this
Court. A 3-Judge Bench of this Court, in Anjum Kadari and
another v. Union of India and others,8 has authoritatively
held that a law enacted by Parliament or a State Legislature
can be invalidated by courts on two grounds alone, namely:
(i) lack of legislative competence; and (ii) infringement of any
of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the
Constitution or violation of any other constitutional provision.
10.5. Accordingly, Section 3(b) of the 2010 Act is required to be
tested on the anvil of the principles laid down by this Court to
determine its constitutional validity. It is not in dispute that the
appellants do not assail the 2010 Act on the ground of lack of
legislative competence of the respondent-State. Consequently,
the sole issue that survives for consideration is whether the
classification engrafted under Section 3(b) of the 2010 Act
offends the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of
the Constitution.
10.6. According to the appellants, the impugned provision
expressly excludes persons appointed under an “academic
arrangement”, such as the present appellants, from its ambit.
It is contended that this exclusion creates an artificial and
arbitrary classification, resulting in an unjustified distinction
between the appellants and other similarly situated employees
engaged on an ad hoc, contractual or consolidated basis.
10.7. The 2010 Act, thus, creates two distinct classes of appointees,
namely: those appointed on an ad hoc, contractual or
consolidated basis, and those engaged on an academic
arrangement.
10.8. More recently, a 7-Judge Bench of this Court, in State of
Punjab and others v. Davinder Singh and others,9 had
occasion to consider the permissibility of sub-classification
within the framework of affirmative action, in the context of

8 (2025) 5 SCC 53
9 (2025) 1 SCC 1
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 349

Abhishek Sharma v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.

the equality mandate under Article 14 of the Constitution.
While delineating the parameters governing the creation of
classifications without transgressing the principle of equality
before the law, this Court observed as follows: -
“84. Article 14 employs two expressions — equality
before the law and equal protection of the laws. Both
different in content and sweep. “Equality before the
law”, an expression derived from the English Common
law, entails absence of special privileges for any
individual within the territory. It does not mean that
the same law should apply to everyone, but that the
same law should apply to those who are similarly
situated. The expression “equal protection of the
laws” means that among equals, laws must be
equally administered. It enjoins the State with
the power to reasonably classify those who are
differently placed. The mandate of “equal protection
of laws” casts a positive obligation on the State to
ensure that everyone may enjoy equal protection of
the laws, and no one is unfairly denied this protection.
In essence, the guarantee of equality entails that
all persons in like circumstances must be treated
alike. That there must be a parity of treatment
under parity of conditions. Equality does not entail
sameness. The State is allowed to classify in a
manner that is not discriminatory. The doctrine of
classification gives content to the guarantee of equal
protection of the laws. Under this approach, the focus
is on the equality of results or opportunities over
equality of treatment.
85. The Constitution permits valid classification
if two conditions are fulfilled. First, there must
be an intelligible differentia which distinguishes
persons grouped together from others left out
of the group. The phrase “intelligible differentia”
means difference capable of being understood.
The difference is capable of being understood
when there is a yardstick to differentiate the
class included and others excluded from the
350 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

group. In the absence of the yardstick, the
differentiation would be without a basis and
hence, unreasonable. The basis of classification
must be deducible from the provisions of the
statute; surrounding circumstances or matters of
common knowledge. In making the classification, the
State is free to recognise degrees of harm. Though
the classification need not be mathematical in
precision, there must be some difference between
the persons grouped and the persons left out,
and the difference must be real and pertinent.
The classification is unreasonable if there is
“little or no difference”. Second, the differentia
must have a rational relation to the object sought
to be achieved by the law, that is, the basis of
classification must have a nexus with the object
of the classification.”
(emphasis supplied)

Article 14 of the Constitution, therefore, does not fetter the
power of the State to frame classifications, for equals alone
are entitled to equal treatment. Persons who are not similarly
situated cannot claim parity. However, the said principle does
not confer upon the State an unfettered licence to carve
out artificial distinctions within a class of persons who are
otherwise similarly situated. Any such artificial or unreasonable
classification would strike at the very core of the right to equality
and violate the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.
10.9. Thus, for a classification to withstand constitutional scrutiny,
two conditions are required to be satisfied. First, there must
exist an intelligible differentia, namely, a rational and discernible
basis which distinguishes one group of persons from another,
founded on a real and relevant criterion. As observed in
Davinder Singh (supra), in the absence of such a yardstick,
the differentiation would be bereft of any rational foundation
and would, therefore, be unreasonable. Second, the differentia
so adopted, being the basis of the classification, must bear a
rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the
classification.
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 351

Abhishek Sharma v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.

10.10. In the present case, the 2010 Act extends the benefit
of regularisation to appointees engaged on an ad hoc,
contractual or consolidated basis, whereas those appointed
on an academic arrangement, such as the present appellants,
are placed in a separate category and rendered ineligible
for the benefit of regularisation under the said enactment.
10.11. Appointments of a contractual nature were regulated by
SRO No. 255 issued by the respondent-State on 5th August,
2003 titled “Jammu and Kashmir Contractual Appointment
Rules, 2003”. A comparative examination of the said 2003
Contractual Rules and the impugned SRO of 2009 governing
appointments on an academic arrangement basis reveal that
a substantial number of provisions contained therein are
identical or closely similar in nature.
10.12. Rule 4 of both the sets of Rules pertains to appointments
made thereunder. Rule 4(1) of SRO No. 384 of 2009 (the
impugned SRO) and Rule 4(1) of SRO No. 255 of 2003 (the
2003 Contractual Rules) are identically worded. For the sake
of clarity, the relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow: -

SRO No. 384 of 2009 (impugned SRO, SRO No. 255 of 2003 (2003
governing appointment on academic Contractual Rules)
basis)
4. Appointment under these rules. – 4. Appointment under these
rules. –
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in any rule or order (1) Notwithstanding anything to
for the time being in force relating to the the contrary contained in any
method of recruitment and conditions of rule or order for the time being
service for recruitment in any service, or in force relating to the method
to any post under the Government, the of recruitment and conditions of
appointing authority may appoint persons service for recruitment in any
to the posts mentioned under rule 3 on service, or to any post, under
academic arrangement basis initially for the Government, the appointing
a period of one year extendable upto authority may appoint persons to
maximum of six years (one year at a the posts notified under Rule 3 on
time and subject to good performance contract basis initially for a period
and conduct) or till selection/promotion of one year or till regular selection
is made in accordance with the rules is made in accordance with the
of recruitment governing the respective rules of recruitment governing
posts, whichever is earlier: the respective posts, whichever
is earlier.
352 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Provided that the appointment under Provided that the appointment
these rules shall not entitle the appointee under these rules shall not entitle
to any preferential claim for regular the appointee to any preferential
appointment under normal process of claim for regular appointment under
selection/appointment. normal process of selection.
... (2) the services of an appointee
under these rules shall be terminable
(2) The services of an appointee under
before the expiry of the contractual
these rules shall be terminate before the
period with one month’s notice, form
expiry of the tenure appointment with one
either side, or on payment of one
month’s notice, from either side, or on
month’s salary in lieu of notice by
payment of one month’s salary in lieu of
the appointing authority.
notice by the appointing authority.
(3) The appointee under these
(3) The appointee under these rules
rules shall have to execute an
shall have to execute an agreement with
agreement with the Government
the Government on the prescribed form
on the prescribed from appended
appended as Form ‘A’ to these rules.
as Form ‘A’ to these rules.
(4) The appointment on academic
arrangement basis against a post shall
be made only when in filling up the post
according to relevant recruitment rules
is likely to be time consuming.

10.13. A conjoint reading of the provisions of both the SROs
reveals a striking degree of similarity. The first proviso to the
impugned SRO as well as to the 2003 Contractual Rules is
pari materia, inasmuch as both stipulate that appointments
made thereunder shall not confer any preferential claim for
regular appointment through the normal process of selection.
Rule 2 of both the SROs further provides that the services
of an appointee may be terminated prior to the expiry of
the tenure or contractual period, as the case may be, upon
issuance of one month’s notice or on payment of one month’s
salary in lieu thereof. Significantly, Rule 3 of both the SROs
prescribes the execution of a formal agreement between
the respondent-State and the appointee, and the language
employed in the agreements under both the SROs is identical.
10.14. The sole distinction between the two sets of provisions lies
in the tenure of engagement. The impugned SRO of 2009,
governing appointments on an academic arrangement basis,
prescribes a ceiling on the term of service, providing that
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 353

Abhishek Sharma v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.

such appointments shall be made for a period of one year,
extendable up to a maximum of six years. In contrast, the 2003
Contractual Rules contemplate appointments for a period of
one year or until a regular selection is made in accordance
with the applicable recruitment rules, whichever is earlier.
10.15. In the present case, the appellants have already exceeded the
six-year ceiling prescribed under Rule 4(1) of the impugned
SRO, by reason of the interim orders directing maintenance
of status quo, initially passed by the High Court on 7th June,
2018, in the intra-court appeals and thereafter by this Court
vide order dated 17th April, 2023. Had the respondent-State
simply terminated the services of the appellants upon
completion of six years, as contemplated under Rule 4(1),
the appellants would have been rendered ineligible to claim
the benefit of regularisation upon completion of seven years
of service under the 2010 Act.
10.16. The question that, therefore, arises for our consideration is
whether the criterion adopted by the respondent-State to
treat the present appellants differently withstands scrutiny
in the eyes of law, or whether the differentia sought to be
carved out offends the equality principles enshrined in the
Constitution.
10.17. We are unable to accede to the submission of the respondent-
State that the criterion adopted to deny parity of treatment to
the appellants is valid and legally sustainable. The exception
carved out under Section 3(b) of the 2010 Act could have
been justified only if appointees engaged on an academic
arrangement basis were inherently incapable of satisfying
the conditions stipulated under the Act. However, once those
conditions stand fulfilled, we find no cogent basis to deny
such appointees the benefit of regularisation.
10.18. More so, such benefit would necessarily have to be extended
by the respondent-State where the nature of duties discharged
by appointees engaged on an academic arrangement basis
is identical to the duties performed by those falling within
the other categories rendered eligible for the benefit of
regularisation.
354 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

10.19. Section 5(v) of the 2010 Act stipulates, as a necessary
condition for regularisation, that an employee must have
completed seven years of service as on the appointed day,
namely 28th April, 2010. However, the second proviso to
the said provision expressly acknowledges the possibility of
subsequent fulfilment of the minimum requirement of seven
years of service.
10.20. The second proviso further provides that an appointee who
had not completed seven years of service on the appointed
day shall continue in service until the completion of the
requisite period of seven years and shall thereafter become
entitled to regularisation under the Act. The beneficial tenor
of the said provision manifests the intent of the respondent-
State to avoid the enactment of measures that would have
otherwise operated harshly against employees who, though
short of the prescribed tenure on the appointed day, would
subsequently fulfil the minimum requirement of seven years
of service for availing the benefit of regularisation.
10.21. Accordingly, once the conditions stipulated under Section
5(i) to (v) of the 2010 Act stand satisfied, the appointee
becomes entitled to seek regularisation of service at the
hands of the State. In such circumstances, the nature of the
initial engagement, whether on an academic arrangement,
ad hoc, contractual or consolidated basis, would cease to
be of determinative relevance.
10.22. Additionally, the very object underlying the enactment of the
2010 Act was to cure and regularise long-standing irregular
appointments and to extend legal protection to employees
who had been rendering service for prolonged periods against
substantive and essential posts. The Act, therefore, cannot
be construed or applied in a manner that arbitrarily excludes
a class of employees, such as the present appellants, who
are discharging identical duties under comparable conditions.
Acceptance of the exclusion sought to be enforced by the
respondent-State would not only defeat the legislative intent
but would also result in invidious discrimination against a
homogeneous class of workers.
10.23. The State is expected to act as a model employer and not
as a hard-bargaining or avaricious negotiator. We deem it
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 355

Abhishek Sharma v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.

appropriate to record our serious disapproval of the manner
in which the respondent-State proceeded to issue the
impugned SRO of 2009. It is an undisputed position that
SRO of 2003 was already in force, providing for appointments
on a contractual basis under the respondent-State. In that
backdrop, the subsequent decision of the respondent-
State to promulgate the impugned SRO of 2009 cannot
be regarded as a benign or innocuous exercise. What was
sought to be done was merely to repackage a substantially
similar mode of engagement under a new nomenclature,
namely “appointment on academic arrangement”, while
simultaneously imposing an artificial ceiling of six years on
the tenure of such appointments.
10.24. To compound the matter, when the respondent-State did
eventually act in the manner expected of a responsible
employer by enacting the 2010 Act providing for regularisation
of services, it once again carved out an exclusion by wholly
denying appointees engaged on an academic arrangement
basis the benefit of regularisation. Such a classification rests
on considerations alien to settled constitutional jurisprudence
and the equality mandate. By creating two categories, one
comprising appointees on an academic arrangement basis
and the other consisting of those engaged on a contractual,
ad hoc or consolidated basis, the respondent-State has failed
to establish any reasonable nexus between the classification
and the object sought to be achieved by extending the benefit
of regularisation to the latter category alone.
10.25. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in holding that the
respondent-State has not only failed to demonstrate any
distinction in the nature of duties discharged by the appellants,
but has, by engrafting the impugned exception in the 2010 Act,
subjected the present appellants to invidious discrimination,
thereby infringing their fundamental right to equality.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 2477 of 2025
11. Leave granted.
11.1. The present appeal assails judgment dated 27th December,
2024, passed by the High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 2535
356 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

of 2023, whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition
filed by the appellant-employees and upheld the order dated
4th September, 2023 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal,
Bench, Srinagar in TA No. 204 of 2021.
11.2. The appellants in the present case are aggrieved by the
same differential treatment being accorded by virtue of their
appointment being on academic arrangement basis and thus,
the case of the present appellants is entirely covered by the
reasoning and discussion made by us earlier in this judgment.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 5108 of 2023, Civil Appeal @ SLP
(C) No. 5093 of 2023, Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 12238 of 2023
and Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 2477 of 2025.

OUR CONCLUSIONS: -
12. In light of the foregoing analysis and discussion, we summarise our
conclusions as under: -
I. 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,
conditions of service and mode of appointment, denial of equal
treatment solely on the basis of nomenclature is impermissible
under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
II. The exclusion under Section 3(b) of the Jammu and Kashmir
Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 does not satisfy
the test of reasonable classification. The said provision lacks
an intelligible differentia and bears no rational nexus with the
object of the Act, which is to regularize long-standing irregular
appointments, and therefore results in invidious discrimination
qua appointments on academic arrangement basis.
III. Fulfilment of statutory conditions under Section 5(i) to (v) of
the 2010 Act is determinative of eligibility for regularization.
Once such conditions are satisfied, the nature of the initial
engagement, whether academic arrangement, ad hoc,
contractual or consolidated, ceases to have any legal relevance.
IV. The second proviso to Section 5 of the 2010 Act is a beneficial
provision and must receive purposive interpretation. Any
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 357

Abhishek Sharma v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.

construction which defeats the legislative intent of protecting
employees who subsequently complete the qualifying service
period is constitutionally unsustainable.
V. The State, as a model employer, cannot adopt artificial
classifications to deny statutory benefits. Repackaging
contractual engagements under a different nomenclature, while
denying regularization, violates the equality mandate under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

FINAL DIRECTIONS: -
13. Accordingly, the judgments dated 22nd February, 2023 and 27th
December, 2024, passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir
and Ladakh at Jammu in Letter Patent Appeal No. 81 of 2018 (along-
with other connected and analogous appeals) and in Writ Petition
(C) No. 2535 of 2023, respectively, are hereby set aside.
13.1. It is declared that 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.
13.2. The respondent-State is directed to consider the cases of the
appellants for regularisation in accordance with Section 5 of
the 2010 Act, without reference to the nomenclature of their
initial appointment, within a period of 4 weeks from the date
of this judgment.
13.3. The benefit of this judgment shall extend to all similarly situated
employees appointed on an academic arrangement basis who
satisfy the statutory requirements under the 2010 Act.
14. Consequently, the present appeals stand allowed in aforesaid terms.
15. Pending application(s), if any, are disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeals allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey