Srinagar, May 22, KDC: Observing that making appointments through “pick-and-choose” methods and subsequently regularising them amounts to a “fraud on the Constitution”, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed petitions filed by three Junior Engineers of the University of Kashmir seeking regularisation of their services and quashing of a recruitment notification issued by the University.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar dismissed six connected petitions, while holding that appointments made without a proper selection process cannot confer a right to regularisation and that constitutional courts cannot perpetuate what it termed “backdoor appointments.”
The petitioners, Pir Mohd Ishaq, Taizeem Qayoom and Obais Hamid Bhat had challenged a common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Srinagar Bench, which declined interim relief against University of Kashmir Advertisement Notification No. 05/2026 dated March 30, 2026, issued for filling one post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) and two posts of Junior Engineer (Civil).
The petitioners were engaged by the University in January 2017 as Junior Engineers on what the University described as a “Hire and Fire” basis on an initial consolidated monthly remuneration of ₹15,000, later revised upwards. Their engagements were extended periodically, with the last extension continuing till May 22, 2026.
They argued before the court that having rendered service for over nine years and possessing requisite qualifications, they had acquired a legitimate expectation of regularisation, particularly in view of earlier regularisation exercises undertaken by the University.
Senior Advocate Altaf Haqani, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the University had exploited their services for years under an unfair “hire and fire” mechanism and could not abruptly discontinue them after extracting work on meagre wages. The petitioners also relied upon a University Council decision dated October 11, 2013, contending that it envisaged regularisation of certain casual and contractual engagements and should apply to them as well.
The University of Kashmir opposed the petitions through Advocate Asif Maqbool, who argued that the petitioners’ engagements were purely temporary, made without advertisement or a competitive selection process and therefore could not confer a right to regularisation.
The University maintained that the petitioners were aware from inception that their engagements were temporary and terminable.
The institution further argued that regularising such appointments would violate constitutional guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 16 by depriving eligible candidates of a fair opportunity to compete for public employment.
Delivering an extensive judgment, a copy of which lies with news agency Kashmir Dot Com, running into constitutional principles governing public employment, the Bench observed that “equality of status and opportunity” forms one of the foundational features of the Constitution.
The court strongly criticised practices where governments and public institutions first appoint individuals on ad hoc, contractual, temporary or daily wage basis and subsequently regularise them without a fair recruitment process.
In one of its sharpest observations, the court said “Permitting the State to make ad hoc and temporary appointments by adopting a ‘pick-and-choose’ method, without issuing advertisement notifications or conducting competitive examinations, and then introducing a policy of regularisation, is nothing short of a fraud on the Constitution.”
The Bench further observed “Successive Governments in Jammu and Kashmir have consistently adopted a unique modus operandi to deny citizens their right to equality and equal opportunity in matters of employment.”
The court noted that appointments based on political affiliations or arbitrary considerations followed by later regularisation defeated constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16.
It observed “Whatever be the mode adopted by the Government to regularize temporary, ad hoc, contractual and daily wage employees picked up arbitrarily other than by holding a fair process of selection and providing fair opportunity to eligible candidates, is nothing short of fraud on the Constitution.”
The Bench also cautioned constitutional courts against intervening in a manner that obstructs regular recruitment processes.
Relying heavily upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi (2006), the court reiterated that temporary or contractual employees do not acquire an automatic right to regularisation merely because they continue for long periods.
The court held “Long continuation by itself cannot create a right to permanent absorption where the original appointment itself did not follow constitutional recruitment norms.”
Regarding the petitioners’ reliance on the University Council decision of 2013, the Bench held that the policy had limited applicability and could not become a perpetual mechanism for regularising future temporary engagements.
“The policy has outlived its life and utility and cannot be treated as a perpetual source of regularisation of backdoor appointees,” the court observed.
While dismissing the petitions, the High Court granted limited relief by permitting the petitioners to participate in the recruitment process initiated by the University.
The Bench directed that if otherwise eligible, they shall be granted age relaxation considering they were within the prescribed age limit when initially engaged in 2017.
The petitioners were also granted 15 additional days to submit applications. (KDC)
