HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU SWP No. 1638/2014 Dr. Rajesh Sharma …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Nigam Mehta, Advocate. Vs State of J&K & Ors. .….Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Saliqa Sheikh, Assisting Counsel vice Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER (24.02.2026) 01. The petitioner has filed the present petition, challenging impugned termination notice dated 14.06.2014 issued by respondent No. 4 whereby services of the petitioner as Medical Officer (ISM) under NRHM Scheme have been terminated. 02. It appears that the petitioner, in pursuance to Advertisement Notice dated 25.01.2010 issued by respondent No. 3, was appointed as Medical Officer (ISM) on contractual basis under NRHM Scheme at district Samba in terms of select listed dated 07.08.2010. The petitioner, upon his appointment, was adjusted at Primary Health Centre, Ghagwal against a vacancy on a contractual basis for a period of one year renewable for a period of another year subject to his performance and continuation of the Scheme on a monthly remuneration of Rs. 16,000/-. Serial No. 21 Regular List 2 SWP No. 1638/2014 03. It appears that contract of the petitioner was renewed from time to time until 14.06.2014, when the impugned notice came to be issued by respondent No. 4 whereby service contract of the petitioner was terminated on the ground that Primary Health Centre, Ghagwal has been upgraded to First Referral Unit (FRU) as a result whereof the post of Medical Officer (ISM) had been abolished. 04. The petitioner has challenged the impugned notice on the grounds that he has continued to perform his duties as Medical Officer (ISM) at PHC Ghagwal for more than four years and his contract has been renewed every year on account of his excellent performance. It has been submitted that under the NRHM Scheme, the post of Medical Officer (ISM) has not been abolished in the State of J&K, thus the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated. It has been further submitted that respondent No. 4 by issuing the impugned termination notice has violated the Scheme. 05. It has been contended that respondent No. 4 is not the competent authority to terminate the services of the petitioner. It has further been contended that posts of Medical Officer (ISM) cannot be abolished and in fact, such posts are required to be enhanced so as to promote Ayush System of Medicines. It has been contended that the petitioner has continued to function as Medical Officer (ISM) at PHC Ghagwal till February, 2014 even though the said Health Centre was upgraded as First Referral Unit (FRU) in 3 SWP No. 1638/2014 January, 2012. Thus, the contention of respondents that post of Medical Officer (ISM) in First Referral Unit (FRU) Ghagwal has been abolished is contrary to their stand. It has also been contended that prior to terminating the contract of the petitioner, no notice has been issued to him, as such, there has been a violation of principles of natural justice. 06. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing reply thereto. In their reply, the respondents have submitted that as per the guidelines issued by Government of India under NRHM, the post of ISM Doctor is no more in existence in FRU/CHC, Ghagwal. It has been submitted that the competent authority, namely, District Health Society (District Development Commissioner), Samba in a meeting decided to discontinue the services of ISM doctors posted in FRU/CHC, Vijaypur and FRU/CHC, Ghagwal. It has been submitted that as per the terms of engagement, the contract of the petitioner can be terminated by either side by giving one month’s notice or in lieu of it by paying one month’s remuneration or by surrendering one month’s salary , as such, the petitioner has no right to seek continuance. 07. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 08. It is admitted case of the parties that engagement of the petitioner as Medical Officer (ISM) is contractual in nature. In terms of condition No. (3) of the Advertisement Notice dated 25.01.2010, 4 SWP No. 1638/2014 the contract was to run initially for a period of one year which was renewable for a period of one year at a time, based on performance and continuation of Scheme. The engagement order of the petitioner makes it clear that his engagement is for a period of one year renewable for a period of another year at a time based on performance or continuation of the Scheme. From this, it is clear that engagement of the petitioner was contractual in nature, which was renewable annually subject to performance or continuation of the Scheme. 09. In the present case, the petitioner was initially engaged in terms of order dated 12.08.2010 and his contract of service was renewed from time to time until the year 2014. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of the undertaking executed by him with the respondents, from a perusal where of, it appears that contract of the petitioner was renewed upto 31.03.2015. However, prior to that, the impugned termination notice dated 14.06.2014 came to be issued by respondents. So there has been a pre-mature termination of service of the petitioner. 10. It appears that despite issuance of impugned termination notice against the petitioner, the same has not been acted upon and the petitioner is still continuing to function as Medical Officer (ISM). This is clear from the additional documents that have been brought on record by the petitioner by way of a supplementary affidavit. The latest document which shows that the petitioner is still working as 5 SWP No. 1638/2014 Medical Officer, CHC Ghagwal, is order dated 20.09.2025 whereby he has been designated as Block Nodal Officer. The petitioner also placed on record a document dated 06.06.2025 which shows that proposal for extension of contract of the petitioner for financial year 2025-2026 has been approved and his name figures at serial No. 6 of the said list. 11. In the face of aforesaid developments, it can safely be stated that the impugned termination notice has not been given effect to by the respondents and the same has lost its efficacy. Therefore, testing the legality of the impugned termination notice would only be an academic exercise. 12. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 24.02.2026 Naresh/Secy. Naresh Kumar 2026.02.10 23:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document