altaf ahmad wani and another vs University of Kashmir on 21 October 2026

1. The present Original Application arises out of a grievance which, though seemingly straightforward, reflects a prolonged failure on the part of the respondents to give effect to their own decisions, policy framework and repeated recommendations concerning the regularisation of the applicants’ services. The applicants were engaged by the respondent University as Data Entry Operators (DEOs) on a consolidated remuneration of ?4,500/- per month. Their engagement was not intended merely to meet a temporary or incidental requirement of a particular office; rather, it was necessitated by the performance of continuing functions relating to the Information Technology (IT) and e-Governance systems of the respondent University.

2. The applicants have continued to discharge their duties as Data Entry Operators at the University for approximately fifteen years. During this period, the nature and significance of the work performed by them have not diminished. On the contrary, the University's reliance on IT-enabled services has increased, and the functions discharged by the applicants have assumed an important role in the University's administrative and operational framework.

3. Meanwhile, the respondent University formulated a roadmap/policy for addressing the cases of its casual and contractual employees. The said framework was communicated vide communication No. [reference number to be verified] dated 20.08.2013, followed by Notification dated 03.09.2014, pursuant to the decision of the University Council dated 11.10.2013. The said policy framework reflected an institutional decision to address the issues concerning long-serving casual and contractual employees.

4. The applicants’ cases for regularisation were subsequently considered at various administrative levels in the light of the aforesaid policy framework, and recommendations were reportedly made in favour of regularising their services. However, despite the consideration of their cases and the recommendations made in this regard, the matter has not culminated in a final decision granting the applicants the relief sought by them.

5. The applicants’ grievance, therefore, is not founded solely on the length of their service, nor is their claim for regularisation based merely on considerations of sympathy. Rather, their claim is founded on the cumulative effect of their initial engagement, the continuing nature of the duties performed by them, the policy/roadmap formulated by the respondent University, the recommendations made in favour of their regularisation, the financial arrangements under which their services have been supported, and the alleged failure of the respondents to take a lawful, reasoned and final decision on the proposals concerning their regularisation.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents is present pursuant to the advance notice served by learned counsel for the applicants.

7. Issue notice.

8. Mr. Asif Maqbool, learned counsel for the respondents, accepts notice on their behalf and seeks time to file a reply/objections.

9. Accordingly, four weeks’ time is granted to the respondents to file their reply/objections, with an advance copy to be furnished to learned counsel for the applicants.

10. Meanwhile, the respondents shall not displace or replace the applicants from their present positions by engaging other persons through an arrangement of a similar nature, till the next date of hearing. Alteraion, modification on motion.

11. List on 22.12.2026. Prasant Kumar Member (A) Justice Ritu Tagore Member (J) Devendra Tripathi ( steno 'd' )