news details |
|
|
| HC rules Academic arrangement not a gateway to indefinite service | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, May 14: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that appointment on academic arrangement basis does not confer any right to continue indefinitely in service, as it dismissed a writ petition filed by a former Dental Lab Assistant of Government Dental College and Hospital, Srinagar.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar dismissed the petition filed by Aarif Sidiq Rah, who had challenged the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench, upholding his disengagement from service.
The petitioner was initially engaged as Dental Lab Assistant on academic arrangement basis in 2014 under SRO 384 of 2009 read with SRO 409 of 2013. His engagement was extended from time to time, but after completion of six years, he was disengaged. He challenged the action and claimed that he was entitled to continue till the post was filled on regular basis.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate M. M. Dar argued that in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Abhishek Sharma v. State of J&K, academic arrangement employees were entitled to consideration for regularisation under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010.
The High Court, however, rejected the plea, observing that the petitioner was engaged in 2014, whereas the Act of 2010 came into force on April 28, 2010. Since the petitioner was not in service on the “appointed day”, he could not claim benefit of regularisation under the Act.
The Bench further held that Rule 4 of the J&K Medical and Dental Education Appointment on Academic Arrangement Basis Rules, 2020 clearly provides that academic arrangement appointments cannot be extended beyond six years under any circumstances.
The Court said the Supreme Court judgment in Abhishek Sharma would benefit only those academic arrangement employees who satisfy the statutory requirements under the 2010 Act.
Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed the plea and upheld the disengagement order. The judgment has been approved for reporting. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
