Despite Statutory Status, Vaishno Devi Shrine Board Not 'State' Under Article 12 Due To Lack Of Govt Control: J&K&L High Court

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a Pujari challenging the order whereby his services were discontinued by the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board and seeking reinstatement in service. The petitioner had also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 14(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1986.

Justice Sanjay Dhar, while dealing with the maintainability of the petition and the merits of the challenge, observed,

“Shrine Board has been constituted under a statute and has, therefore, acquired a statutory status, yet in the absence of any kind control of the Government financial, functional or administrative it cannot be said to be a State or an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.”

In his petition the petitioner had submitted that he had been appointed as a Pujari at the Darbar of the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine in September 1986 on a consolidated monthly salary. According to him, he had taken up employment while he was still a student and had left his studies to discharge his duties at the shrine.

It was contended that despite performing his duties honestly and diligently, the respondents issued an order discontinuing his services with effect from 1 July 1988. The petitioner argued that the action of the respondents was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India, and had severely affected his livelihood and career prospects.

The petitioner also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 14(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1986, alleging that it conferred vague and unbridled powers upon the authorities.

The respondents contested the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner's appointment was purely adhoc and did not confer any right to continue in service. It was further contended that the constitutional protection available to government servants under Article 311 was not applicable because the Shrine Board was not “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

Court's Observations:

The Court first examined the question regarding the status of the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board and whether it could be treated as “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

Referring to earlier judicial pronouncements, the Court noted that although the Shrine Board has been constituted under a statute and enjoys statutory status, the decisive test for determining whether a body falls within Article 12 is the extent of governmental control over it.

The Court observed that in the absence of financial, functional or administrative control by the Government, the Board cannot be regarded as “State” or an authority under Article 12. The Court further noted that earlier judicial decisions had also concluded that writ petitions seeking enforcement of fundamental rights against the Shrine Board would not be maintainable on the ground that the Board is not “State” within the meaning of Article 12.

However, the Court clarified that the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution is considerably wider than Article 12. Even if an entity is not “State” within the meaning of Article 12, the High Court can exercise writ jurisdiction against such bodies in appropriate cases.

Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar (2015) 3 SCC 251, the Court noted that the expression “any person or authority” under Article 226 includes not only statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State but also bodies performing public duties. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court decision in Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani (1989) 2 SCC 691, which held that writs may be issued against private bodies performing public duties.

However, the Court clarified that the existence of a public law element is necessary and writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely to enforce purely private contractual rights.

Applying these principles to the present case, the Court observed that the petitioner's engagement as a Pujari was purely adhoc in nature. The impugned order did not cast any stigma on him and was not punitive. The Court noted that an adhoc appointee does not acquire a vested right to continue in service and that such employment comes to an end when the purpose or requirement for which the appointment was made ceases to exist.

The Court further observed that the respondents had clearly indicated in the impugned order that the services of the petitioner and two other employees were no longer required by the Board. In these circumstances, the petitioner could not claim a legal right to continue in service, the court underscored.

Consequently, the Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed the same.

Appearances:

Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Atul Verma, Advocate vice Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate for the Respondents.

Case Title: Subash Raina v. State of J&K & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 104

Click here to read/download Judgment.