1 S. No. 53 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No. 777/2023 Asif Iqbal …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Mohammad Murshid Rashid, Advocate Vs. Union Territory of J&K and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Maha Majeed, Advocate vice Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 22.07.2025 1. Petitioner is aggrieved of order No. 249 of 2020 dated 18.07.2020 as according to him in terms of said order he has been disengaged from the rolls of District SPO Cadre Bandipora in a discriminatory and arbitrary manner and without affording him an opportunity of being heard and/or serving any notice or holding any enquiry, thereby offending his rights as enshrined and guaranteed to him under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner, thus, challenges his disengagement through the medium of instant writ petition and seeks quashing thereof with a direction to respondents to reinstate and admit him to services with all consequential benefits including back wages. 2. Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner’s disengagement has violated his rights under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India because he was not given an opportunity of hearing and that an inquiry 2 was not held. Senior Superintendent of Police, Bandipora, without issuing a prior notice or conducting an enquiry in terms of the impugned order (Annexure-I, supra) disengaged the petitioner from the rolls of District SPO Cadres with immediate effect. Even the copy of the disengagement order was not provided to the petitioner. It is next stated that petitioner contacted serious virulent infection (disease) Hepatitis-C and remained under treatment for quite long time and Doctor advised him to take precaution due to outbreak of the COVID, infection, which has consumed countless lives and unleashed upheaval in entire world during that period. It is stated that order impugned is illegal, improper and in violation of the provisions of the Constitution as same violates Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order of termination is stated to be mechanical, non-speaking and not informed with reasons which by no stretch of imagination justify the impugned order and suffers from the vice of impropriety, unreasonableness and gross arbitrariness and is based on no evidence. Petitioner’s counsel has relied Cooper vs. Wandsworth Board of Works (1863) 143 ER 414, relied in Uma Nath Pandey and Others Vs. State of U.P. He has also relied upon “Shahen Shah vs. Union Territory of J&K and Others”; “Union Territory of J&K vs. Arsam Imtiyaz Malik” and “Riyaz Ahmed Soil vs State of J&K and Others”. 3. Objections have been filed. It is stated that petitioner was disengaged following a signal from Police Office, DPO Bandipora, and the Office of Dy SP DAR DPL Bandipora, depicting therein that petitioner was habitual of absenteeism, and his services were unsatisfactory. Petitioner 3 was described as a dull/habitual absentee towards his assigned tasks/duties. Since engagement of petitioner was temporary and conditional, as such, he has no right to establish lien over the post. Continuation of temporary services are subject to fair discharge of duties, including discipline but petitioner’s absence demonstrates a lack of seriousness towards his duties. The main ground by the respondents to disengage petitioner is petitioner’s habitual absenteeism and unsatisfactory performance justify their decision to disengage him. They assert that no prior notice was necessary because the absence was unauthorized. 4. Judgement dated 05.06.2014 passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPAW No.153/2012 titled as State of J&K vs. Mohammad Iqbal Mallah, has been relied upon by respondents. The said judgement covers instant case as well. In the said judgement it has been held that once writ petitioner was not holding any post regulated by any statutory rules, departmental enquiry was not required to be conducted, although SPO might be discharging significant duty. Reliance was made to State of Karnataka vs. Ameerbi, (2007) 11 SCC 681 and State of Assam vs. Kanak Chandra Dutta, AIR 1967 SC 884. Appointments made under a scheme and recruitment process being carried out through a committee, would not render incumbent thereof holders of civil post. A distinction must be made about a post created by the Government in exercise of powers under Articles 77 or 162 of the Constitution of India or under a statute vis-à-vis cases of this nature which are sui generis. 4 5. In the case in hand, petitioner was working as SPO and he decided to absent himself from duty and resultantly his services were disengaged. He has no right to any post. There was no requirement of law to hold an enquiry for complying with the rules of principles of natural justice as he was not a holder of a post muchless a civil post. Therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 22.07.2025 Shabroz