Engagement for a fixed term does not confer a right to extension or regularization, and the court's decision is influenced by the specific terms of the initial engagement orders and the relevant university statutes.

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 adhoc 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 University was motivated by any ill will or malice towards the appellants/writ petitioners or their colleagues.

4. The writ court did not find merit in the case set up by the petitioners. It held the petitioners to have been appointed for a limited period and not to have a right to have their services regularized. It found the respondents to have acted within their powers while outsourcing the service and appointing M/s Good House Keeping to maintain hostels and supply necessary staff to the respondent-University. The writ petitions were accordingly dismissed by a common judgment dated 4.9.2013.

5. Shri Mohinder Kumar and his wife Ms. Oma Devi have filed two separate appeals being LPA (SW) No. 152/2013 and LPA (SW) 176/2013 against the writ court judgment. The writ court judgment is questioned on the grounds that non extension in term of engagement in case of appellant Mohinder Kumar and disengagement in case of Ms. Oma Devi, violated the mandate of Jammu & Kashmir Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University Act 1999 and Articles 14 and 16 Constitution of India. The appellants insist that in terms of the Act, they have a right to have their services regularized and failure on part of the respondent -University to extend term of appellants, is in conflict with the Act. It is pleaded that a number of similarly placed colleagues of the appellants have been regularised and non extension/disengagement in case of appellants is discriminatory in character and therefore violative of right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 Constitution o