LPASW No. D-176 of 2013. Case: Oma Devi Vs State of J and K. High Court of Jammu and Kashmir (India)
| Case Number | LPASW No. D-176 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Vivek Sharma, Adv. and For Respondents: Gagan Basotra, Sr. AAG and Ms. Neeru Goswami, Advs. |
| Judges | M.M. Kumar, C.J. and Hasnain Massodi, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 12, 14, 16 |
| Judgement Date | January 31, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Jammu and Kashmir (India) |
Judgment:
Hasnain Massodi, J.
1. Shri Mohinder Kumar-appellant herein was on 30.8.2007 engaged as Driver in Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University (hereinafter respondent University), on consolidated salary of Rs. 5000/- per month, for a period of six months. The term of his engagement was extended from time to time with one day break. He continued as such for next three years. The respondent-University, however, did not re-engaged him or extend his term of engagement after 3rd September, 2010. He filed a writ petition being SWP No. 2742/2010. He amongst various reliefs, sought a writ of mandamus commanding respondent-University to continue him as Driver on contractual/temporary basis and also to regularize him against an available post on the analogy his similarly placed colleagues were regularized.
2. Smt. Oma Devi w/o Sh. Mohinder Kumar was vide order dated 8.3.2010 engaged as Hostel Supervisor (Female) in the respondent University on a consolidated salary of Rs. 4000/- per month. Earlier the aforesaid position was offered to her vide letter No. SMVDU/Adm./10/6234-35 dated 5.3.2010 and on her accepting the offer, formal engagement order was issued in her favour on 8.3.2010. She was later vide order No. SMVDU/Adm./10/6466-70 dated 26.3.2010 deputed as Hostel Supervisor to Shivalik Girls Hostel. She was disengaged w.e.f. 16.6.2010. She filed a writ petition being SWP No. 245/2011. She like her husband, sought a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to allow her to continue as Hostel Supervisor on ad hoc basis till the post of Hostel Supervisor was filled up by regular selection.
3. The respondents opposed the two writ petitions on almost identical grounds. The respondents questioned the maintainability of writ petitions on the ground that Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University did not fall within definition of "State" as defined under of Article 12, Constitution of India and therefore was beyond writ jurisdiction of the court. The respondents insisted that engagement in both the cases was for a fixed term extendable at the option of the University and the appellants/writ petitioner's therefore had no right to hold the position. The respondents pleaded that disengagement/non-extension in term of engagement was necessitated due to a policy decision taken by the University to outsource works like maintenance of hostels, housekeeping, transport etc. The respondents denied that the decision to outsource few services or activities by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial