JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has challenged Order No. CEO/K/2895-2901 dated 30.06.1988 issued by respondents No. 4 and 5 whereby services of the petitioners have been discontinued w.e.f., 01.07.1988. A direction commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service has also been sought. Besides this, the petitioner has also challenged the vires of Section 14(2) of the J&K Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1986.

02. As per case of the petitioner, he was appointed as Pujari at Darbar of respondent No. 1 on 27.09.1986 by respondent No. 4 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 700/- per month. It has been submitted that at the time when the petitioner was employed in the Darbar, he was a student and he had left his studies. It has been submitted that in terms of impugned order dated 30.06.1988 (supra), his services have been discontinued thereby ruining the career of the petitioner. It has been submitted that the petitioner was given to understand that his employment is permanent in nature. It is being submitted that the petitioner discharged his duties with devotion and honestly but without any fault on his part, his services were terminated by respondents No. 4 and 5. It has been submitted that the petitioner has a number of dependents to look after, as such, the impugned order has worked harshly against him.

03. According to the petitioner, the impugned order of disengagement of the petitioner is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India being in derogation of principles of natural justice. It has been submitted that services of the petitioner could not have been terminated without adopting procedure prescribed under law. It has been submitted that no enquiry was held by the respondents before dispensing with the services of the petitioner.

04. According to the petitioner he was appointed against a clear vacancy and the said vacancy is still existing, as such, there was no need for dispensing with his services. The order impugned, as such, according to the petitioner, is malafide in nature and it has cast a stigma upon him. It has been submitted that in May, 1988, the respondents have created certain posts on which certain other persons have been adjusted but the petitioner has been thrown on road side along with his family.

05. It has been contended that Section 14(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1986 is ultravires of the Constitution being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as it confers vague and unbridled powers on respondent No. 1.

06. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing their reply. In their reply, the respondents have submitted that termination of the petitioner is not punitive in nature nor does it cast any stigma upon the petitioner. It has been submitted that appointment of the petitioner 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 respondent-Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board (hereinafter to be referred to as “respondent-Board”) is not the Government but is an autonomous body. The respondents have denied having assured the petitioner that his appointment will be made permanent in nature. It has been submitted that having regard to the nature of the impugned order, no enquiry whatsoever was required to be conducted before disengaging the petitioner. It has been contended that Jammu and Kashmir Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act is not violative of any provisions of the Constitution and there is no ground to assail the vires of the said Act. It has been submitted that the ground projected by the petitioner is baseless and misconceived.

07. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.

08. Before dealing with the contentions raised in the present writ petition, it wou