The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) delivered a significant verdict on Friday, stating that employees appointed on an academic arrangement basis within the Higher Education Department (HED) could not claim regularisation when their appointments were not made against clearly defined vacancies.
In a ruling that impacted nearly a hundred applicants whose cases were transferred from the High Court to CAT, the bench consisting of D S Mahra Member (J) and Shri Krishna Member (A) also affirmed the tribunal’s jurisdiction to address challenges to the constitutional validity of statutory provisions.
The individuals in question had been engaged as assistant professors, lecturers, and demonstrators within the HED on an academic arrangement basis, typically for a single academic session with a fixed tenure, which commenced in April and concluded the following March.
If required, they could reapply for the next academic session, and extensions were granted either by the authorities or through court orders.
The applicants sought regularisation under the J&K Civil Service (Special Provisions) Act of 2010. However, their claims were denied because their appointments were of a tenure nature for a particular academic session and not against clear vacancies, as stipulated in Section 3 (b) of the act.
Section 3 (b) explicitly specified that those appointed on an academic arrangement basis for a fixed term were not eligible for regularisation.
To challenge this, aggrieved applicants filed writ petitions in the High Court, asserting that Section 3 (b) of the act was unconstitutional and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. These cases were subsequently transferred to the CAT, alongside additional applications challenging Section 3 (b) of the act.
The primary issue before the tribunal was whether it had the authority to decide the constitutional validity of Section 3 (b) of the Act 2010. The tribunal observed that the act aimed to regularize ad hoc, contractual, and consolidated basis employees against clear vacancies.
The tribunal pointed out that the act distinguished between employees appointed on a tenure basis against clear vacancies and those appointed on an academic arrangement basis for a fixed term without such clarity.
It concluded that Section 3 (b) was not in violation of Article 14 and that the applicants belonged to a distinct class, explicitly excluded from the act. Thus, Section 3 (b) was deemed constitutionally valid.
Regarding the tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide the constitutional validity of Section 3 (b) of the J&K Civil Service (Special Provision) Act, 2010, the bench referenced a Supreme Court ruling that established the competence of tribunals in such matters.
Meanwhile, the Central Administrative Tribunal Srinagar appreciated the valuable assistance rendered by the counsels appearing for the applicants and especially the counsels for the respondents – Bikramdeep Singh, DAG, Waseem Gul, GA and Hakim Aman Ali, DAG in this batch of cases
