Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Mar 18: The High Court has held that Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine (SMVDSB) Board is an autonomous body as such is not amenable to writ jurisdiction and dismissed the plea of its employee challenging his discontinuation from working as Pujari in the Shrine.
Follow the Daily Excelsior channel on WhatsApp
The petitioner-Subash Raina challenged Order No. CEO/K/2895-2901 dated 30.06.1988 whereby his services were discontinued with effect from 01.07.1988.
Justice Sanjay Dhar said a body like the Board, which does not qualify to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court in the matters relating to enforcement of fundamental rights but it is certainly amenable to the writ jurisdiction in other matters, which have element of any public law.
“Even if it is assumed that the present writ petition is maintainable still then the petitioner does not have a case on merits as well as the perusal of the impugned order of disengagement would reveal that the petitioner has been disengaged along with two more employees as their services were no more required by the Board. The impugned order does not cast any stigma on the petitioner and it is not punitive in nature”, read the judgment.
The court said the engagement of the petitioner as Pujari with the Board was purely on adhoc basis and an adhoc appointee has no vested right to the post against, which he has been appointed. Employment of an adhoc appointee, the court added, ends the moment the purpose or term for which such an employee was hired comes to an end.
The respondents have clearly indicated in the impugned order that services of the petitioner along with two more employees are no more required by the Board. The petitioner does not have a right to continue on the post having regard to the fact that the nature of his employment is purely adhoc. He, therefore, cannot seek an order for continuation in service against the respondents. “For what has been discussed hereinbefore, the writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed”, the court concluded.
The court after discussing the law on the subject has held that in the absence of violation of statutory provision or breach of public duty by a body or person, writ petition for enforcement of a private contract of service is not maintainable. In the face of this legal position, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner for challenging his disengagement from service is not maintainable.
The Board has contested and submitted that termination of the petitioner is not punitive in nature nor does it cast any stigma upon the petitioner as his appointment was purely on adhoc basis and it does not confer any right upon him to hold the post. It has been contended that protection available under Article 311 of the Constitution of India cannot be extended to the petitioner because the Board is not the Government but is an autonomous body.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
