Supreme Court of India
SHEIKH JAVEED AHMAD & ANR.versusSTATE OF J&K & ORS.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 624
- Decided
- 27 March 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred and the appointments of the appellants as Assistant Professors must be reinstated because the sponsor (SKIMS) was responsible for arranging the diploma and the requirement could not be fulfilled, rendering the cancellation unlawful.
Summary
Dr. Sheikh Javeed Ahmad and Dr. Abdul Hamid Rather were appointed as Senior Residents in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation at SKIMS with the promise of sponsorship for a two‑year diploma and subsequent appointment as Assistant Professors. The diploma could not be obtained because the sponsoring institute failed to secure admission and the course was discontinued in many colleges. The High Court set aside their appointments, holding that the required diploma was not obtained and that there was no impossibility in obtaining it. The appellants challenged the cancellation through a public interest litigation, arguing that SKIMS, as sponsor, was responsible for arranging the training and that the diploma requirement had been relaxed by the DGHS. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred, as the notification made SKIMS liable to sponsor the diploma and the requirement could not be fulfilled, and consequently reinstated the appellants as Assistant Professors with continuity of service, directing revival of the blocked posts.
Issues considered
- Whether a public interest litigation challenging service appointments is maintainable under the J&K Constitution.
- Whether the alleged impossibility of obtaining the prescribed two‑year diploma justifies setting aside the appointments of the appellants.
Legislation cited
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the appointments of the appellants as Assistant Professors as being incompatible with the rules and regulations. Headnotes† Service Law – High Court canceled the appointment of the appellants as Assistant of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (PMR), Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Soura, Srinagar (SKIMS) holding that they did not have the prescribed qualification of diploma course in PMR – It was held that they did not make any effort for admission into the
Subjects
Appointments as Assistant ProfessorsSher-I-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS)Apical Selection CommitteeSenior Residents in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (PMR)Diploma courses in PMRTwo-year diplomaImpossibility of obtaining the prescribed qualificationsAll India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (AIIMS)Requirement of a diploma relaxedPublic interest litigationPIL in service mattersReinstatementContinuity in serviceImpossibility in law
Judgment
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1503 : 2025 INSC 624
Sheikh Javeed Ahmad & Anr.
v.
State of J&K & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 4426-4427 of 2025)
27 March 2025
[Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and
Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the appointments
of the appellants as Assistant Professors as being incompatible
with the rules and regulations.
Headnotes†
Service Law – High Court canceled the appointment of the
appellants as Assistant Professors in the Department of
Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (PMR), Sher-I-Kashmir
Institute of Medical Sciences, Soura, Srinagar (SKIMS)
holding that they did not have the prescribed qualification
of diploma course in PMR – It was held that they did not
make any effort for admission into the institutions that ran
the aforesaid course and that there was nothing on record
to show that obtaining a diploma in PMR was impossible –
Challenge to:
Held: High Court erred in setting aside the appointment of the
appellants – Notification issued by the competent authority,
blocking two positions of Assistant Professor for the appellants
shows that the two candidates were to be sponsored for two-
year diploma in their specialty whereafter, they would serve the
institution for seven years in accordance with the necessary
bond – Therefore, it was SKIMS that had to make arrangements
to secure admission for the appellants however, it could not
arrange for the appellants to undertake the course – Further, it
was also found that various colleges had shut down the diploma
course – Moreover, the appellants did undertake such training
and the first appellant, even secured a letter of recommendation
by the Head of Department, AIIMS Delhi – Appellants to be
1504 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
reinstated in service as Assistant Professors with continuity in
service. [Paras 8, 9, 11, 12, 15]
Service matters – Public Interest Litigation – Maintainability –
Discussed.
Case Law Cited
Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Misha & Ors. [1998] Supp.
1 SCR 77 : (1998) 7 SCC 273; Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab
[2005] Supp. 1 SCR 215 : (2005) 5 SCC 136; Hari Bansh Lal v.
Sahodar Prasad Mahto [2010] 10 SCR 561: (2010) 9 SCC 655;
High Court of Gujarat v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat & Ors.
[2003] 2 SCR 799 : (2003) 4 SCC 712 – referred to.
List of Acts
J&K Constitution.
List of Keywords
Appointments as Assistant Professors; Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of
Medical Sciences (SKIMS); Apical Selection Committee; Senior
Residents in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (PMR); Diploma
courses in PMR; Two-year diploma; ‘Impossibility’ of obtaining the
prescribed qualifications; All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
New Delhi (AIIMS); Requirement of a diploma relaxed; Public
interest litigation; PIL in service matters; Reinstatement; Continuity
in service; Impossibility in law.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 4426-4427
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.03.2018 and 11.07.2014
of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar in
PIL No. 43 of 2014 and PIL No. 861 of 2010 respectively
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Gaurav Pachnanda, A.M.Magrey, Sr. Advs., Nitish Gupta, Farman
Ali, Ms. Nikita Jaitely, Dhruv Arora, Chandra Prakash.
Advs. for the Respondents:
G.M. Kawoosa, Pashupathi Nath Razdan.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1505
Sheikh Javeed Ahmad & Anr. v. State of J&K & Ors.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
Leave Granted.
2. These appeals question the correctness of a judgment and order
dated 11th July 2014 passed in OWP (PIL) No.861 of 2010 and the
order dated 30th March 2018 in RPIL No.43 of 2014 as well as the
order dated 30th March, 2018 in RPPIL No.43/2014, by the High
Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar, whereby appointments
as Assistant Professors, granted to the appellants herein, namely,
Dr. Sheikh Javeed Ahmad & Dr. Abdul Hamid Rather, were set aside
as being incompatible with the rules and regulations, and the reviews
sought thereagainst being dismissed as well.
At the outset, we note an order of this Court passed on 3rd November
2023-
“When the matters are called on for hearing, learned
counsel for the petitioners submitted before us that out of
the three petitioners of the Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’)
out of which the present proceeding arises, two are not
traceable and one of the three persons in whose names
that action has been brought has filed an affidavit before
the High Court stating therein that he had not filed the
said petition.
The State shall file a report as regards whereabouts of the
three petitioners who had brought the PIL. The State shall
also apprise this Court about the position of vacancy in the
Sher-I- Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Srinagar…”
(Emphasis supplied)
On 12th December 2023, it was informed that the Director General,
Crime Investigation Department1 was inquiring into the identities of
the PIL petitioners. Vide affidavit dated 12th February 2024 filed by
the Secretary to the Government of Jammu Kashmir, enclosed the
report of the CID, which is extracted below for reference :
1 Hereafter, CID
1506 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
i. The petitioner namely Mohd Syed Shah S/O Mohd
Sadiq Shah figuring at S.No.01 in the ibid reference
found to be resident of Konan, Bandipora. He is
approximately 70 years of age. He was running a
medical shop at Chuntimullah, Bandipora, currently his
two sons are running a medical shop in main market
Bandipora. The purported petitioner Mohammad
Syed Shah has denied to have filed the PIL before
the Hon’ble Court. Reportedly 02 years back, he had
given an undertaking to SKIMS authorities wherein
he denied filing of any such PIL before the Hon’ble
Court. The contact number of Mohammad Syed Shah
is 9596325628.
ii. The petitioner namely Mohammad Ishaq Khanday
S/O Abdul Khaliq Khanday R/O Batpora, Sopore
figuring at S.No.02 in the ibid reference is currently
residing at Hamza Colony Bemina Srinagar since
1986 and retired as Research Assistant from
Agriculture Department in 2020. His phone number
is 7889505126. He admitted the filing of the PIL.
iii. The whereabouts in respect of the petitioner namely
Mohammad Amin Sheikh S/O Ghulam Ahmad Sheikh
R/O Bohari, Sopore figuring at S.No.3 in the above
quoted reference could not be traced out due to
incomplete address.
3. The field report further revealed that the petition was
reportedly filed by one Dr. Ali Mohammad Buhroo S/O
Ghulam Mohammad Buhroo R/O Gundiqasier, Bandipora,
the then HOD Physics SKIMS Srinagar (Now retired)
10years ago before the Hon’ble High Court of J & K on
behalf of the petitioners including Mohammad Syed Shah
with whom the purported petitioner Mohammad Syed Shah
was working as an attendant.”
(Emphasis supplied)
We may here itself record our surprise that the High Court, after
being in receipt of such an affidavit of the alleged petitioner, did not
take steps to look into its order and the propriety thereof. Be that
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1507
Sheikh Javeed Ahmad & Anr. v. State of J&K & Ors.
as it may, we now proceed to the facts and merits of the matters
before us.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the factual backdrop of these appeals
is as under :
3.1 The authorities of the State issued advertisement notice No.
1 on 31st December 2004 to fill up positions of Professors,
Associate Professors and Assistant Professors at the Sher-I-
Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Soura, Srinagar2. The
Appellants herein applied for the position of Assistant Professors,
however, were adjudged ineligible.
3.2 Subsequently, the Apical Selection Committee, in its XXIXth
meeting held from 25th to 29th August 2005, recommended
the appointment of the two Appellants as Senior Residents in
Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation3 as also their sponsorship
for a two-year diploma in the specialty. It was also stated in the
resolution that they shall be appointed as Assistant Professors
in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation after completing the two
years’ training course and as such, two positions of Assistant
Professors were blocked for such purpose.
3.3 The appellants were appointed to such positions (Senior
Residents) on 12th December 2005. Due to certain difficulties,
it appears that the two-year diploma could not fructify. This led
to certain correspondence between the Head of Department,
SKIMS and the Head of Department, PMR, All India Institute
of Medical Sciences, New Delhi4, asking for clarity in this
regard. The Head of the Department of the latter institution
recommended in his letter dated 10th March 2006 that according
to the practice that has been followed, on-the-job training is
imparted in PMR, AIIMS, under a learned teacher and that he
would be more than willing to fill in this gap. It is also stated in
the letter that this training is for either 6 months or any other time
period as is deemed necessary. Though, this would not amount
to a degree but is sufficient for the person having received the
2 Abbreviated as ‘SKIMS’
3 Abbreviated as ‘PMR’
4 Abbreviated as ‘AIIMS’
1508 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
same to work as a faculty in the subject. The correspondence
dated 10th March 2006 by Dr. U. Singh, the Head of Department,
PMR, AIIMS, is extracted as below :
“…Dear Sir Buhroo,
Kindly refer to your letter No. SIMS/PMR/170/24/06
dated 07.03.2006 regarding training of Sr. Residents
of your Department to undergo Diploma in PMR, and
extending Academic Assistance to your Institution.
As desired in your letter, the AIIMS does not run any
Diploma Course. It runs only three years Degree
course leading to MD (PMR). If you wish to train your
Senior Residents in PMR. It will not be very logical
to train a person already having an MD (medicine)
degree to do any Degree course in PMR. As was
done in the past, persons with MD (Medicines) or
M.S. (Orthopaedics) used to get on the job training
in PMR under a learned teacher, while working in
Department of PMR itself. This has been the practice
how our Senior illegible trained and imparted training
to others.
I would like to suggest you that you should work the
possibility of training your own Senior Residents,
under your own care in the Department of PMR at
SKIMS, Srinagar, rather than sending them away …
… …
I understand that for sharpening certain skills, some
exposure would be required in other institutions as
well for a short period of time. Our Department, at
AIIMs, would be very happy to fill this gap. If you
deem it necessary. The short term training may be
of a few months, or the period you feel necessary …
… …
But, I would like to clarify once again that such
short term trainings will not amount to any degree
or diploma but it should be sufficient for the person
to work as a Faculty of this subject.”
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1509
Sheikh Javeed Ahmad & Anr. v. State of J&K & Ors.
3.4 Consequently, the appellants undertook the short-term
training program at AIIMS Delhi. On 6th October 2007, a fresh
advertisement for recruitment was issued for the vacancies
which remained unfilled. The record reveals that, vide letter
dated 26th October 2007, SKIMS acknowledged that the efforts
made to secure positions in a two-year diploma course for the
appellants had not yielded results. It was further stated that
since they had successfully completed the training offered in
Delhi, they could be considered for the position of Assistant
Professor. The letter is extracted, as under :
“ANNEXURE P-9
SHER-I KASHMIR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCES,
(DEEMED UNIVERSITY) SOURA, SRINAGAR
Subject : S hort term training Course in Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation at AIIMS, New
Delhi.
Reference: Letter No.SIMS 302 07 (XXIX) 2005-
1955-56 dated: 11.10.2007
Refer your above communication regarding Dr.
Sheikh Javeed Ahmad and Dr. Abdul Hamid Rather
for undergoing Diploma in PMR as per the decision
of the Apical Selection Committee held from August
25th to 29th 2005.
In this connection you are hereby informed that
the possibility of undergoing Diploma in PMR was
tried and it was found that Diploma in PMR was not
available in AIIMS and PGI. However, HOD, Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation, AIIMS was contacted in
this regard by HOD, PMR, SKIMS who had send his
reply as enclosed.
Accordingly the concerned doctors were send for six
months training in the department of Phy. Medicine &
Rehabilitation at AIIMS and now they have returned
after completing the training course.
1510 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Thus their case may be taken up for consideration
to the post of Assistant Professor as decided in the
Apical Selection Committee.
Registrar (Academic)
AAO (Policy)
SKIMS
Sims, ACAD/SR-995 2007
Dated: 26.10.2007
Copy for information to
1. PS to Dean for information of the Dean.”
3.5 On 12th February 2008, the requirement of a diploma was relaxed
by the Directorate General of Health Services, Government
of India, qua contractual employees5, which is annexed as
Annexure P-10. However, yet again, a fresh advertisement
dated 25th June 2009 was issued by SKIMS. Record is silent
as to what became of this process.
3.6 On 20th October 2010, a Notification was issued appointing
the instant appellants as Assistant Professors in the said
department. The order of appointment, which runs into five
pages, annexed as Annexure P-146, elaborately discusses the
background of the appointments of the appellants as Assistant
Professors. Pursuant to SKIMS’ communication with AIIMS,
Delhi, they undertook training at the latter institution. This was
with the approval of the Apical Selection Committee, since
despite best efforts by the former, admission into a two-year
diploma could not be secured for the appellants on the ground
of non-availability across the number of institutions in the
country. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the Apical Selection
Committee recommended the relaxation of this condition qua
the appellants which was so done by the competent authority,
viz., Hon’ble Chief Minister, Chairman of the SKIMS Governing
Body.
5 Page 100 of the paperbook.
6 Page 121 of the paperbook
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1511
Sheikh Javeed Ahmad & Anr. v. State of J&K & Ors.
Consequently, on 3rd November 2010, with a requisite
notification, they were relieved of their duties as senior residents.
3.7 The public interest litigation, which is the subject matter herein,
under Section 103 of the J&K Constitution, the subject matter
of the present appeals by special leave, came to be filed before
the High Court on 9th December 2010 seeking for setting aside/
cancellation of the appointment of the instant appellants7 as
Assistant Professors in the Department of PMR, SKIMS.
4. Two issues that arose for consideration before the High Court are :
one regarding the maintainability of the public interest litigation, as
it pertains to service matters; and two, regarding the ‘impossibility’
of obtaining the prescribed qualifications, thereby justifying the
appointment of the appellants without the same.
4.1 It was acknowledged that the maintainability of public interest
litigation in service matters is no longer res integra, with reference
to Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Misha & Ors.8
and Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab9. It was also noticed,
though, that this Court had carved out an exception to this
rule in cases where appointments made to public offices were
against statutory rules prescribed therefor. In such cases, it was
held that the Court would be justified in issuing a writ of quo
warranto. [See: Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto10.]
The question of maintainability was thus answered keeping in
view the decision in High Court of Gujarat v. Gujarat Kishan
Mazdoor Panchayat & Ors.11, which clarified the scenarios in
which the Court could issue quo warranto as against certiorari.
4.2 The position in law, that the law does not compel a man to
do something which is impossible, was acknowledged, but it
was held that there was nothing on record to show that the
appellants obtaining a diploma in PMR was impossible. It
was observed that the appellants did not make any effort for
admission into the institutions that ran courses in the field of
7 Referred to as Respondents 8 & 9 before High Court
8 (1998) 7 SCC 273
9 (2005) 5 SCC 136
10 (2010) 9 SCC 655
11 (2003) 4 SCC 712
1512 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
PMR. Regarding Dr. U. Singh it was observed that it appeared
as if his opinion was solicited only to justify the appointment
of the appellants. Furthermore, it was held that in the event
of difficulty in securing the qualifications as required by the
MCI, the correct course of action would have been to seek
amendment of the rules.
4.3 In conclusion, it was held that if doctors without the requisite
qualifications were allowed to continue in an institution of
such repute, it would jeopardise patient care in such hospitals
and negate efforts to achieve academic excellence. The
appointments, as such, were set aside.
4.4 The appellants were, upon approval of the then Chief Minister of
the erstwhile State of Jammu Kashmir, who is the Chairperson
of the SKIMS Governing Body, removed from service by way
of orders cancelling the appointments being issued bearing the
following particulars – Government Order No.42 – SKIMS of
2018, dated 21st May 2018.
5. Aggrieved, the appellants are before us. We have heard Mr. Gaurav
Pachnanda and Mr. A.M. Magrey, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants and Mr. G.M. Kawoosa, learned counsel appearing for
the State.
6. Relief in the nature of a writ was claimed before the High Court
against the appellants’ illegal appointment, which was granted. Prior
to delving into the merits, it is essential to look at the advertisement(s)
for the positions to which the appellants had applied.
6.1 The relevant extracts of the advertisement dated 15th February
2005, is as below :
“GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
SHER-I KASMIR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCES, SOURA, SRINAGAR
ADVERTISEMENT
Applications are invited for filling up of following vacant
faculty positions at SKIMS on regular/temporary
basis :-
… …
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1513
Sheikh Javeed Ahmad & Anr. v. State of J&K & Ors.
Assistant Professor (11625-325-15200)
Anaesthesiology, BT & IH, Cardiology, CI.
Haematology, CI. Pharmacology, Community
Medicine, Hospital Administration, CI., Community
Medicine, Hospital Administration, Immunology &
Molecular Medicine, Medical Oncology, Neurosurgery,
Nuclear Medicine, Pathology, Paediatric Surgery,
Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Plastic Surgery,
Radio-diagnosis, Radiotherapy, Radiological Physics
& Bio-Engineering, Surgical Gastroenterology and
Urology… … …
Professor
Qualification-Essential for Medical candidates:-
(1) A medical qualification included in the Schedule I or
II Part-II of the Third Schedule to the Indian Medical
council Act of 1956 (persons possessing qualifications
included in Part-II or Third Schedule should also fulfil
the conditions specified in Section 13(3) of the Act.
(2) A Postgraduate qualification e.g. MD/MS, or a
recognised qualification equivalent thereto in the
respective discipline/subject.
… …
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
Qualification – Essential for Medical candidates
(general discipline):
Same as 1 and 2 for Professor (medical candidates)
Experience - Essential for Medical candidates (general
discipline):
3 years teaching and/or research experience in a
recognised institution in the subject of speciality
after obtaining the qualifying degree of MD/MS or a
qualification recognised equivalent thereto.
Qualification – Essential for Medical candidates (Super
Speciality disciplines):
1514 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Same for Professor (Medical candidates)
Experience – Essential for Medical candidates (Super
Speciality disciplines)
One year teaching and/or research experience in
a recognised institution in the subject of speciality
after obtaining the Degree of DM/M C.H. (2 years
or 5 years recognised course after MBBS) or
qualification recognised equivalent thereto. However,
no experience is necessary for the candidates
possessing the 3 years recognised degree of DM/M
Ch. Or qualification recognised equivalent thereto.”
6.2 Notification dated 24th November 2005 blocking two positions of
Assistant Professor for the appellants, subject to the condition
of completion of the diploma, is as under:-
“The Apical Selection Committee in its (XXIX) meeting
held from August 25th to 29th, 2005 recommended
appointment of following two candidates as Senior
Residents in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
and their sponsorship for two years diploma in the
Speciality for which they are required to execute
necessary bond/agreement with the institute to the
effect that they will serve the institute after completion
of training for a period of seven years:-
1. Dr. Shiekh Javeed Ahmad
2. Dr. Abdul Hamid Rather
The above two doctors shall be appointed as Assistant
Professors, Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
after completing two years’ training course and for
this purpose two posts of Assistant Professor are
blocked…”
(Emphasis supplied)
7. We are of the view that the High Court erred in coming to such a
conclusion in the facts of this case. The basis of the conclusion
drawn by the High Court was that there was nothing on record to
show that the appellant had made efforts to be admitted into the
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1515
Sheikh Javeed Ahmad & Anr. v. State of J&K & Ors.
institutes offering the diploma and that their candidature had, after
due consideration, been rejected. In other words, there was no
impossibility in law to secure the qualifications as required.
8. We find this to be the mistaken position of fact. The Notification
issued by the competent authority, blocking two positions of Assistant
Professor for the appellants, as reproduced above, tells us so. It
makes clear that the two candidates would be sponsored for two-year
diploma in their specialty, and subsequent to the completion of which,
they would serve the institution for seven years in accordance with the
necessary bond/agreement, which will have to be executed. A bond
or agreement of this nature is formed when the employer financially
supports the educational advancement of one of its employees, who
is then expected to return and contribute to the employer’s growth
with the newly acquired experience and knowledge for a specific
period. The condition is that if such an employee fails to do so, the
bond they have executed, which may be for a specified amount of
money, shall be forfeited, or the amount paid by the employer in
sponsoring such education shall have to be returned.
9. It is clear, therefore, that SKIMS was the one who had to make
arrangements to secure admission for the appellants. The notification
extracted in paragraph 7.2 of this order makes that abundantly clear.
This is acknowledged by their counter affidavit dated 23rd July 2023.
It has been deposed therein :
“6. That thereafter the matter was again placed before the
Apical Selection Committee, in 2007, with the submission
that the said Diploma could not be arranged for the
petitioners at AIIMS, New Delhi and PGI, Chandigarh
has they have discontinued such course. Apical Selection
Committee in 2007 was apprised of such situation which
advised SKIMS to arrange the Diploma in other identified
Institutions in other parts of the Country. The sponsorship
of the petitioners could not materialize as the training
has been discontinued by various institutions except
few, where only natives were eligible to apply and these
doctors were sent for 06 months short term training
course in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation at AIIMS,
New Delhi w.e.f. 13.03.2007 which they successfully
completed. … … …
1516 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
The Apical Selection Committee was informed that despite
the strenuous efforts made by SKIMS Administration
to secure sponsorship of the petitioners as Senior
Residents for 02 years Diploma training in PMR in one
of the Institutions of the country previously identified by
Apical Selection Committee, could not materialize. This
was corroborated by the external expert Dr. U. Singh,
Professor & Head Department of PMR, AIIMS, who strongly
recommended appointment of above doctors as Assistant
Professor in relaxation of 02 years Diploma in PMR as
one time exception”
(Emphasis supplied)
The inescapable conclusion, then is that SKIMS, being the sponsor,
could not arrange for the appellants to undertake the course.
10. We also take exception to the manner, in which the recommendation
of Dr. U. Singh has been cast aside by the High Court, insinuating
that he had been involved only to obtain a stamp of approval for
a foregone conclusion. It is not as if the person whose opinion is
sought is unqualified to give the same; it is not as if such a request
for guidance is misplaced, given that AIIMS, Delhi, is considered
to be the apex Government Hospital - then, for the High to have
rejected the same stating -
“… It does indeed appear that the letter of Dr. U. Singh,
was elicited only with a view to justify the appointment of
the private respondents 8 and 9. This was certainly not a
case of there being any impossibility in the acquisition of
qualification prescribed by MCI for the post of Assistant
Professor…”
in our view, is unjustified.
11. Furthermore, we find the observation of the High Court extracted
below :
“This is however, contradicted by the petitioners who have
placed on record, a list of medical colleges where Diploma
courses in PMR are available in as many as 13 medical
colleges and other medical institutes of the country. They
have also placed on record the prospectus issued by the
AIIMS, New Delhi, wherein the course of PMR is made
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1517
Sheikh Javeed Ahmad & Anr. v. State of J&K & Ors.
available to sponsored/foreign students thereby belying
the stand of the private respondents.”
to be nothing short of surprising since both the aforementioned Dr.
U. Singh and the SKIMS appointing authority which, of course, is the
Government, to have found that various colleges have shut down
the diploma course - yet the High Court, without any verification of
the documents produced by the respondents therein, came to its
conclusion.
12. It is clear from the record that the appellants did undertake such
training and Dr. Sheikh Javeed Ahmad, who is the first appellant
before us, even secured a letter of recommendation by the Head of
Department, AIIMS Delhi.
13. Accounting for the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the
High Court erred in setting aside the appointment of the appellants.
14. By our order dated 26th March 2025, we had asked the learned counsel
for the parties to obtain instructions with regard to the vacancies at
SKIMS. Instructions received in regard thereto by way of e-mail have
been furnished to us. We reproduce the same in toto :
“As verified from the Policy Section, SKIMS, various posts
including two posts of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
(PMR) of terminated Assistant Professors (petitioners)
were forwarded to JK GAD for referring to JKPSC. As on
date, only 13 posts have been cleared by the Finance
Department and these posts have been referred to JKPSC
through Health & Medical Education Department J&K.
JKPSC has also issued advertisement.
Rest of the posts including the two posts of terminated
Assistant Professors in the discipline of PMRF are under
revival in the Finance Department J&K, as these posts
have remained vacant for more than 2 years. As per GFR
(General Financial Rules) these posts fall in the category
of “Deemed Abolished” and require concurrence of the
Finance Department for revival”
(Emphasis supplied)
15. It flows from the above extract that the posts, which were blocked in
favour of the appellants, live in the pendency of these proceedings
1518 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
since they had remained vacant for more than two years. For all the
reasons recorded aforesaid, we are of the view that the appellants
are entitled to and deserve to be reinstated in service as Assistant
Professors with continuity in service. However, this may not be treated
as a precedent. All other benefits, pecuniary and non-pecuniary,
would accrue to them as well, save and except back wages, from the
date of their removal till their reinstatement, which shall take place
forthwith. Learned counsel for the State submits that the proposal for
revival of the two specific posts blocked for the appellants is pending
consideration before the Department of Finance, Government of the
Union Territory of Jammu Kashmir and Laddakh. In the interest of
justice, we direct that the said posts be revived.
16. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties
to bear their own costs.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Appointments as Assistant Professors"Sign in to search