Srinagar, Mar 18: The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that a writ petition filed by an ad hoc employee of the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board challenging his termination is not maintainable, observing that the Board does not qualify as “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution and the dispute arose out of a private contractual engagement.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar ruled that the petitioner, who was appointed as a Pujari on an ad hoc basis in 1986, could not invoke writ jurisdiction to enforce what was essentially a private service contract. The Court emphasised that in the absence of any public law element, judicial review under Article 226 cannot be exercised.
The petitioner had challenged his discontinuation in 1988, alleging violation of Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution and contending that he was removed without due process despite being appointed against a clear vacancy. He also questioned the validity of Section 14(2) of the J&K Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988.
However, the respondents maintained that the appointment was purely ad hoc and did not confer any right to continue in service. They argued that the Shrine Board is an autonomous body and not covered under Article 12, making constitutional protections inapplicable.
The Court referred to earlier rulings, including Omkar Sharma v. Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, to reiterate that despite having statutory status, the Shrine Board lacks sufficient government control to be treated as “State”.
While noting that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can extend to bodies performing public duties, the Court clarified that such jurisdiction cannot be invoked in matters arising purely from private contracts. It cited key Supreme Court judgments, including BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar and Andi Mukta Trust v. V.R. Rudani, to underline that the presence of a public law element is essential for maintainability of a writ petition.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s claim stemmed from a contractual service arrangement and did not involve any breach of public duty or statutory obligation. It further noted that the termination order was non-stigmatic and based on the employer’s assessment that the services were no longer required.
Holding that an ad hoc employee has no vested right to continue in service, the Court ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable.
