ABHISHEK SHARMA versus THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS.

Citation: [2026] 3 S.C.R. 335 · Decided: 09-03-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 basi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.