SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has set aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu Bench, which had quashed a show cause notice issued to a Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology (SKUAST), Jammu faculty member and directed the university to grant her post-facto permission for a foreign assignment in the United Arab Emirates.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem allowed WP (C) No. 634/2025 filed by SKUAST and overturned the Tribunal’s February 18, 2025, decision in Dr Ankur Sharma v. Union Territory of JK and Ors.
Dr Ankur Sharma, an Associate Professor in the Division of Veterinary Surgery and Radiology at SKUAST, had on October 7, 2024, sought permission from the competent authority to apply online for the position of Instructor/Associate Professor at United Arab Emirates University (UAEU) and to appear in the interview through virtual mode.
According to the record, despite follow-ups, no formal decision was communicated to her before the selection process concluded. Dr Sharma subsequently received an employment offer from UAEU for the post of Instructor for the period January 6, 2025, to July 31, 2028, renewable by mutual agreement.
On December 11, 2024, she informed the university authorities about her selection and requested protection of lien and necessary permission for the foreign assignment. However, on December 18, 2024, the university issued a show-cause notice asking her to explain how she had applied for and appeared in the interview without prior formal permission.
After submitting a reply and legal notice, Dr Sharma approached the Tribunal, challenging the show cause notice and alleging delay and administrative inaction on the part of the university.
The Tribunal allowed her Original Application, holding that the university had failed to take timely action on her request and that such inaction amounted to administrative negligence. It relied on Schedule XIX of the JK Civil Service Regulations (CSR) and Rule 14(b) of the JK Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1979, concluding that she was entitled to go abroad for employment of her own and directing SKUAST to grant post-facto sanction for the foreign assignment.
SKUAST challenged the Tribunal’s order, contending that applying for and securing foreign employment without prior approval violated the applicable statutory framework, including the CSR, Leave Rules and the JK Government Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1971.
The university argued that the Tribunal had misinterpreted the rules and substituted its own discretion for that of the competent authority, which alone has the power to grant or refuse permission for foreign employment.
The High Court examined the interplay between Schedule XIX of the CSR, Rule 14(b) of the Leave Rules, and Rule 10(1) of the Conduct Rules.
The Bench observed that Schedule XIX categorises foreign assignments into three types and that Dr Sharma’s case fell under the category where a government servant “of his own, manages an offer for a foreign country.” In such cases, the rules clearly stipulate that if an employee joins foreign employment without proper permission, it amounts to infringement of the rules and may invite disciplinary action, including termination for unauthorised absence.
Referring to Rule 14(b) of the Leave Rules, the Court noted that a government servant desirous of taking up employment under a non-government employer may be required to resign before doing so, except where grant of permission to serve elsewhere is considered desirable in an exceptional case. The Court held that this exception confers discretionary power on the employer and does not create an enforceable right.
The Bench further underscored that Rule 10(1) of the Conduct Rules mandates that no government employee shall undertake any other employment without prior sanction of the government. The Court held that this provision is couched in mandatory terms and directly applies to foreign assignments.
The Court ruled that while the Tribunal can examine whether an employer’s action is arbitrary, mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions, it cannot substitute its own decision for that of the employer in matters involving administrative discretion, such as granting permission for foreign employment.
The Bench also observed that ordinarily a mere show cause notice does not warrant judicial interference, citing Supreme Court precedents including Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana and Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha.
Setting aside the Tribunal’s order, the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by SKUAST. However, to balance equities, it directed the university to reconsider Sharma’s application for permission strictly in accordance with the law and to pass a reasoned “speaking order” within four weeks from the date the judgment is made available.
The judgment was pronounced on February 27, 2026 and approved for reporting.
