Northlines Correspondent
Jammu Tawi, Mar 22: In a significant ruling impacting medical and dental education in the Union Territory, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that posts of Senior Resident, Registrar and Tutor are strict tenure positions limited to three years, and cannot be extended beyond this period under academic arrangements
The ruling will have wider implications for public employment policy in Jammu and Kashmir, as the High Court of J&K and Ladakh has drawn a clear legal boundary on the use of “academic arrangements,” holding that such contractual engagements cannot be stretched beyond the statutory tenure of posts.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar delivered the judgment on March 12, while allowing a batch of writ petitions filed by the Union Territory, setting aside the earlier order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which had permitted Registrars, Tutors and Senior Residents in government medical institutions to continue up to six years. The court ruled that they are strictly three-year tenure positions, regardless of the mode of appointment.
The case arose after several doctors, including Dr. Jyoti Gupta, Dr. Etti Shree, Dr. Atoofa Zargar and Dr. Dheeraj Sharma, approached the CAT seeking continuation up to six years under the Jammu and Kashmir Medical and Dental Education (Appointment on Academic Arrangement Basis) Rules, 2020.
The Tribunal had ruled in their favour, directing the authorities to allow them to continue up to six years or till regular appointments were made.
However, the High Court held that the Academic Arrangement Rules cannot override statutory recruitment rules and national medical regulations, which prescribe these posts as tenure positions not exceeding three years.
The bench observed that even regular appointees cannot continue beyond the prescribed tenure, and therefore, those engaged on academic arrangement basis cannot claim a greater right.
Rejecting the plea of arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the court said the policy of limiting tenure to three years was applied uniformly and did not amount to discrimination. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the CAT’s common judgment and dismissed the claims of the doctors seeking extension beyond three years.
The Union Territory was represented by Senior Designate Additional Advocate General, Raman Sharma, who advanced arguments on the applicability of statutory rules governing tenure posts and opposed continuation beyond the prescribed period.
During the proceedings, the Court was also assisted in connected applications by Advocate Jattan Singh Gill, who appeared on behalf of a group of affected candidates seeking to place their concerns regarding future recruitment on record. The intervention highlighted the broader impact of the dispute on newly qualified doctors awaiting entry into mandatory training positions.
Later, speaking on the development, Advocate Gill said,“The issue was not confined to extension of existing incumbents. It also had a direct bearing on access to Senior Residency positions for fresh candidates, which are essential for career progression in medical academia.”
The judgment is likely to resonate beyond the medical sector, especially in a region where contractual appointments have often been used as administrative tools. By drawing a firm line, the High Court has reasserted that temporary arrangements cannot become a backdoor to permanence—or extended tenure—outside the law.
