[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
University Of Jammu Through Its vs Dr. Som Raj on 2 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
Serial No. 44
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 2803/2025 c/w
WP(C) Nos. 2804/2025, 2805/2025,
2806/2025 & 2807/2025
Date of pronouncement: 02.03.2026
Date of uploading: 03.02.2026
1. University of Jammu through its .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Registrar, Baba Saheb Ambedkar
Road, Jammu-180006
2. Rector, Udhampur Campus,
University of Jammu, Baba Saheb
Ambedkar Road, Jammu-180006
Through: Mr. Inder Jeet Gupta, Advocate
vs
Dr. Som Raj ..... Respondent(s)
S/o Sh. Bansi Lal
R/o Village Sewna, Tehsil Chenani,
District Udhampur, 182141
Through: Mr. Nitin Bhasin, Advocate with
Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER (ORAL)
02.02.2026
Sanjeev Kumar, J
1. The controversy involved for adjudication in all these petitions is
entirely the same as was before a Division Bench of this Court at
Srinagar in LPA No.169/2025 and clubbed matters.
2. A Division Bench of this Court, after hearing both the sides and
having gone through the record and the legal position obtaining in the
matter, disposed of a bunch of LPAs led by LPA No. 169/2025 titled
a/w connected matters
"University of Kashmir and others Vs. Saba Manzoor and others"
vide order and judgment dated 07.11.2025.
3. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties in these
matters and are fully convinced that there are no distinguishing
features in these cases. These petitions are, therefore, disposed of in
terms of judgment dated 07.11.2025, passed in bunch of appeals led by
LPA No. 169/2025. These petitions are disposed of by holding as
under:
(i) The view of the Writ Court that an ad hoc, contractual,
or academic arrangement appointee cannot be replaced
by a similar arrangement for every academic session and
that such appointees are entitled to continue till the posts
against which such appointees have been engaged are
filled up through a regular selection process is
unexceptionable and is, therefore, upheld.
(ii) Since the respondents in all these appeals have been
engaged by the appellants on contractual/academic
arrangement basis for an academic session and against no
substantive vacant posts, the direction to the appellants to
continue them in such arrangement till the posts held by
them are substantively filled up through a regular
selection process cannot be issued, for, the respondents
are engaged only against positions and not against
substantive vacant posts of Assistant Professors existing
in the departments of the appellants. Such distinction has
been very aptly brought out by the Writ Court in the
judgment impugned.
(iii) With regard to the requirement of temporary faculty in
the Department of Law, it would be appropriate to leave it
to the Department concerned and the regulatory authority
a/w connected matters
under the Advocates Act, 1961, i.e., the Bar Council of
India, to take a call.
(iv) Should the appellants need the services of ad hoc,
contractual, or academic arrangement appointees to
supplement their existing core faculty, they shall be free
to make such arrangements. However, while doing so,
they shall first offer these engagements to the respondents
who have already acquired requisite experience in
teaching by rendering their services in earlier academic
sessions. That would benefit both the appellants and the
student community.
(v) The appellants shall refrain from replacing the
respondents herein, who are in position or who are invited
to work in such positions as contractual appointees, by
making similar arrangements for meeting the same
requirement by resorting to a change of nomenclature.
(vi) The Department of Law/Law School of the University
shall, however, be permitted to avail the services of part-
time and guest faculty, who shall be engaged only to
teach specific subjects or deliver lectures on a particular
subject or issue of law, and would not be whole-time
faculty supplied in lieu of core regular faculty.
(vii) The directions of the Writ Court to the appellants not to
replace the existing contractual arrangements by a similar
arrangement are restricted only to the Departments where
there is requirement of teaching faculty but the same is
not met due to inability of the appellants to make regular
selections. Therefore, in the Departments where the need
for ad hoc, temporary, or academic arrangements has
ceased to exist, there shall be no direction to the
appellants to continue the ad hoc, temporary, or academic
arrangement faculty beyond the term of their contract.
a/w connected matters
(viii) This judgment shall be placed by the University of
Kashmir before the Bar Council of India for appropriate
action envisaged under the Advocates Act, 1961 and the
rules framed thereunder, including the Bar Council of
India Rules and the Rules of Legal Education, 2008. The
Bar Council of India shall immediately and forthwith visit
the University of Kashmir and assess the requirement of
core faculty to run the three-year as well as five-year law
courses, and issue requisite directions including creation
of posts, if any, required. The Bar Council of India would
also issue necessary directions to the University of
Kashmir to streamline making of temporary arrangements
to supplement the efforts of core faculty in imparting
quality education to law students.
4. The judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, impugned in
these petitions, is modified to the aforesaid extent.
(Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
Jammu
02.02.2026
Vishal Sharma
Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No
Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No
a/w connected matters
