Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Mohd. Farooq vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 4 July, 2025
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on 29.05.2025
Pronounced on 04.07.2025
CJ Court
LPA No. 56/2025 (O&M)
c/w
LPA No. 61/2025(O&M)
Mohd. Farooq .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Aditya Gupta, Adv.
vs
Union Territory of J&K and others ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG
Mr. Pranav Kohli, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Vastav Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Tania Mahajan, Adv.
Coram: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
PER OSWAL-J:
1. Two writ petitions i.e. WP(C) No. 2379/2024 filed by the private respondent-Ansh Mahajan and WP(C) No. 2648/2024 filed by the appellant- Mohd. Farooq were decided by a common judgment dated 13.03.2025, whereby the learned writ court allowed the writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 2379/2024 preferred by the private respondent with a direction to Board of Professional Entrance Examinations (for short 'the Board') to consider the claim of the petitioner/private respondent and offer him MBBS seat, in case, the next meritorious candidate mentioned in the judgment does not accept the said offer, strictly in tune 2 LPA No. 56/2025 & LPA No. 61/2025 with the merit list prepared by the NEET-UG,and dismissed the writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 2648/2024 preferred by the appellant.
2. The appellant, being aggrieved of the judgment dated 13.03.2025 rendered by the learned writ court, has assailed the same through the medium of two separate intra court appeals i.e. LPA No. 56/2025 for the purpose of assailing the order passed in WP(C) No. 2648/2024, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed and LPA No. 61/2025 against the same judgment, whereby the writ petition bearing No. WP(C) No. 2379/2024, preferred by the private respondenthas been allowed. Accordingly, both these intra court appeals were heard and considered together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
3. For better understanding and adjudicating the issues raised in these intra court appeals, it would be apt to take note of the factual aspects of the case.
Factual Matrix:
4. WP(C) No. 2379/2024 was preferred by the private respondent-Ansh Mahajan for quashing the Provisional Select List of candidates of UT of J&K and Ladakh for MBBS/BDS for various courses for the year 2024 issued vide Notification No. 093-BOPEE of 2024 dated 03.09.2024 issued by the Board of Professional Entrance Examinations (for short 'the Board') to the extent of illegal selection/admission of the appellant to MBBS course under Economically Weaker Section(EWS) category and for directing the Tehsildar, Ramban to enquire and verify the EWS 3 LPA No. 56/2025 & LPA No. 61/2025 status/certificate of the appellant and further for revocation of the same, if found fraudulent, illegal or invalid in light of Rule 2 clause (ixa) of the J&K Reservation Rules, 2005 made under J&K Reservation Act, 2004, read with SRO 518 dated 02.09.2019. A further relief was also sought for commanding the Board to allocate the vacant EWS MBBS seat, if any, to the petitioner therein/private respondent in the subsequent i.e. 3rd round of NEET-UG 2024 counselling as the petitioner/private respondent is an immediate next meritorious EWS candidate after the last selectee to MBBS at cut-off marks (i.e. at 404 marks). It was pleaded by the petitioner therein/private respondent herein that the appellant had registered himself with the JKBOPEE NEET UG 2023 Counselling in the previous academic year-2023 under the Resident of Backward Area (RBA) category and his name was reflected in the Provisional Merit List (PML) of NEET-UG-2023 candidates belonging to the UT of J&K and Ladakh issued vide Notification No. 045-BOPEE of 2023 dated 27.07.2023 under Roll No. 2501210050. The candidature of the appellant under EWS category was assailed by the private respondent on the ground that in terms of Rule 2 clause (ixa) of the J&K Reservation Rules 2005 read with SRO 518 dated 02.09.2019 issued by the Social Welfare Department,an individual already covered under the scheme of reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes, which includes the residents of backward area as well, is not eligible to the benefit of reservation meant for Economic and Weaker Sections. The appellant to secure his 4 LPA No. 56/2025 & LPA No. 61/2025 admission to MBBS has managed to obtain a false EWS certificate by fraudulent, corrupt and illegal means in violation of the rules and provisions. The private respondent approached Principal GMC, Jammu and the Board through the medium of complaint dated 06.09.2024 in respect of fraudulent EWS certification of the appellant, for verifying the legality and authenticity of EWS certificate of the appellant and to further cancel the admission of the appellant under EWS category, if the certificate is found to have been wrongly and fraudulently obtained. It was pleaded by the private respondent that despite complaint made by him, the appellant was granted admission in MBBS UG course at Government Medical College, Jammu without proper verification of his EWS certificate despite the fact that in the impugned Provisional Select List, there was a stipulation that it shall be the responsibility of the College concerned to ensure proper checking and verification of the documents, before the candidate is granted admission. Further, in terms of representation dated 17.09.2024, the private respondent raised the above mentioned concern with Tehsildar, Ramban as well and the said complaint was duly served upon appellant on 19.09.2024 but the said representation remained unaddressed by the Tehsildar, Ramban, which prompted the private respondent to file writ petition.
5. Tehsildar, Ramban filed the reply stating therein that after enquiry, EWS certificate issued in favour of appellant was cancelled vide order bearing No. TR/BCG/2024-25/63-71 dated 31.10.2024. 5
LPA No. 56/2025 & LPA No. 61/2025
6. The Board filed the reply stating therein that the appellant was provisionally selected for undergoing MBBS course 2024 under EWS category and allotted GMC Jammu subject to condition that the said Institution shall ensure the veracity of the documents. It was further stated that the Board received a communication dated 11.11.2024 from GMC Jammu that the EWS certificate issued in favour of appellant has been cancelled ab-initio by Tehsildar, Ramban.
7. The cancellation of EWS certificate bearing No. JK-REV-
EWS/2024/19672 dated 16.08.2024 issued in favour of the appellant by Tehsildar,Ramban vide order bearing No. TR/BCG/2024-25/63-71 dated 31.10.2024, prompted the appellant to file a writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 2648/2024 for assailing the aforesaid order dated 31.10.2024. It was stated by the appellant that he was a resident of Ramban and had done his schooling from Ramban itself. His father was engaged as an SPO and due to his service, he migrated from the native village of Khairkoot Tehsil Banihal to Ramban in the year-2000 and finally settled at Ramban, where he had been living continuously.
8. It was further stated by the appellant that he had applied for NEET-UG-
2023 examination and secured a rank of 1560 whereas the cut-off for MBBS/BDS for the said year was 1912 and the appellant could have easily secured a seat, but the appellant found that he had been wrongly issued the RBA certificate. The said certificate was issued in favour of the appellant in the year, 2016, when he was only 13 years old. The said certificate was issued by the Tehsildar, Banihal on the application 6 LPA No. 56/2025 & LPA No. 61/2025 submitted by his grandfather. It was contended by the appellant that as he did not opt to utilize the said certificate, he applied with the office of Tehsildar,Banihal for cancellation of the said certificate and the Tehsildar Banihal, despite submission of application, did not opt to proceed to cancel the wrong certificate issued in favour of the appellant under the RBA category. It was further stated that the appellant applied for EWS certificate with the office of Tehsildar,Ramban on 10.08.2024 and the same was issued vide No. JK-REV-EWS-2024/19672 dated 16.08.2024 as the petitioner/appellant had fulfilled all the requisite requirements for issuance of the said certificate. It was only on the basis of said certificate that the appellant was selected and pursuing his MBBS course at GMC Jammu.
9. The official respondents filed the response to the writ petition stating therein that a complaint was received on 17.09.2024 by Tehsildar Ramban via WhatsApp lodged by Ms. Tania Mahajan on behalf of the complainant and action was sought regarding the issuance of an income and asset certificate under the EWS category in favour of the appellant. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, a committee was constituted by the Tehsildar, Ramban vide order dated 17.09.2024to conduct thorough enquiry into the matter. The Enquiry Committee submitted a detailed report vide No. NTR/98 dated 30.10.2024 with the findings that the appellant had concealed the material facts and violated rules and regulations by holding multiple domicile certificates, which was prohibited. Consequently, Domicile certificate issued by Tehsildar, 7 LPA No. 56/2025 & LPA No. 61/2025 Ramban was cancelled and the appellant's claim to the EWS was also found to be not genuine. Further examination revealed that the issuance of EWS certificate did not meet the required residential criteria, as the appellant had not established his permanent residence at Ramban but only resided there temporarily for educational purpose. The findings of the Committee indicate deliberate attempts made by the writ petitioner/appellant to manipulate the system for personal benefits by representing his residential status and providing false information in the application. As a result of which, the Committee recommended the cancellation of EWS certificate issued in favour of the appellant. After receipt of the report from the Enquiry Committee, a thorough review was conducted regarding the EWS certificate issued in favour of the appellant. Based on the findings and recommendations made in the report of Enquiry Committee, it was concluded that the EWS certificate issued in favour of the appellant was invalid and did not meet the requisite criteria. Consequently, EWS certificate issued in favour of the appellant was cancelled abinitio regarding which, a formal order of cancellation was issued vide order No. TR/BCG/2024-25/63-71 dated 31.10.2024.It was also stated by the official respondents that the residential house of the father of the appellant was located in Ward No. 1 Ramban but the appellant's claim of his residence in Ramban was contrary to the fact that the appellant and his family members had obtained various important documents such as Ration Card, Domicile Certificate from Tehsildar Banihal. Additionally in accordance with the 8 LPA No. 56/2025 & LPA No. 61/2025 enquiry conducted by the Committee, it was established that the primary domicile of the appellant was issued from Village Tethar, Tehsil Banihal and was still valid. The appellant was not eligible for the issuance of Domicile certificate and the Domicile certificate issued in favour of the appellant vide certificate No. DOM/0901/06Aug/2024/16234173 dated 07.08.2024 was cancelled vide order No. TR/MM/Misc/24/25/163 dated 03.11.2024.
10. The private respondent, who was not initially arrayed as respondent in the writ petition, but arrayed subsequently as respondent No. 6 in the writ petition has submitted that the appellant has misled the whole system by misrepresentation and concealment of material facts regarding his permanent residential status of Tehsil Banihal and possession of a valid Resident of Backward Area certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Banihal in the year 2016 valid up to the year 2026, multiple Domicile certificates issued by the Tehsildar Banihal and Tehsildar Ramban and Ration Card issued from Banihal in the year 2018. The private respondent has reiterated the factum of submissions of complaint dated 17.09.2024 as pleaded by him in WP(C) No. 2379/2024. It was contended by the private respondent that the appellant was a permanent resident of Tehsil Banihal and not of Tehsil Ramban. The appellant had temporarily migrated to Tehsil Ramban for educational pursuits only, duly substantiated by the Enquiry Report dated 30.10.2024. The appellant had cooked a false story of migration in the year-2000 as no migration report has been entered at Police 9 LPA No. 56/2025 & LPA No. 61/2025 Station, Banihal, which clearly establishes the fact that the appellant is indeed a resident of Tethar, Tehsil Banihal. Had the appellant permanently migrated to the Tehsil Ramban in the early 2000, the appellant would have never obtained essential documents/certificates from Banihal. Such essential documents/certificate obtained from TehsildarBanihal post migration to Tehsil Ramban i.e. RBA certificate from Tehsil Banihal in the year-2016, Ration Card from Tehsil Banihal in the year-2018 and Domicile certificate from Tehsil Banihal in the year- 2020 vindicate the stand of private respondent that the appellant is primarily a resident of Tehsil Banihal. The private respondent also averred in the response before the writ court that the appellant was not qualifying the requisite criteria for issuance of EWS certificate and as such, he was not entitled to issuance of EWS certificate under rules.
11. The appellant in LPA No. 56/2025 has sought the relief of setting asidethe judgment dated 13.03.2025 passed by the writ court as well as order No. TR/BCG/2024-25/63-71 dated 31.10.2024 inter alia on the grounds that Tehsildar, Ramban had no competence/power to cancel the EWS certificate in favour of the appellant and the only remedy available with the private respondent was either to file appeal or revision in terms of sections 17 and 18 of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004; the learned writ court committed an error by relying upon an enquiry report submitted before the Tehsildar, Ramban, which was without jurisdiction as the Deputy Commissioner had never initiated the enquiry; the learned writ court completely ignored the fact that the 10 LPA No. 56/2025 & LPA No. 61/2025 appellant on 14.06.2024 by an application surrendered his RBA certificate issued in the year 2016 and pursuant to the said application, reports dated 21.06.2014 of the Lambardar, Chowkidar and Sarpanch were submitted to the Tehsildar, Banihal but despite that the learned writ court employed the 'words without surrendering it' in the first question for adjudication framed by the learned writ court; the learned writ court has wrongly returned the finding that the appellant has obtained the EWS certificate by misrepresentation and filing false affidavit by placing reliance upon the report submitted by Tehsildar Banihal, as Tehsildar Banihal for the reasons best known to him, did not mention the application for surrender of RBA and Domicile certificates on 14.06.2024 and even did not mention the reports sought by him from Lambardar, Chowkidar and Sarpanch of the area, which clearly shows that the Tehsildar Banihal has played a mischief.
12. LPA No. 61/2025 has been filed by the appellant on similar grounds and as such has prayed for the dismissal of WP(C) No. 2379/2024 and for quashing order No. 32-BOPEE of 2025 dated 24.03.2025, whereby the candidature of the appellant in the Provisional Select List notified vide selection No. 93-BOPEE of 2024 dated 03.09.2024 has been cancelled and ordered to be deemed to be so abinitio. The quashing of order dated 24.03.2025 has been sought by the appellant as after the judgment impugned was rendered, the order dated 24.03.2025 came to be issued by the Board in compliance to the judgment rendered by the learned writ court.
11
LPA No. 56/2025 & LPA No. 61/2025 Arguments:
13. Mr. Aditya Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that once EWS certificate was issued by Tehsildar Ramban, he had become functus officio and as such, had no jurisdiction/authority to constitute any committee and cancel the certificate issued by him and if the private respondent was at all aggrieved of the issuance of the certificate in favour of the appellant, he ought to have filed appeal/revision in terms of sections 17 and 18 of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004. He has further argued that the learned writ court has not rightly appreciated the specific contention of the appellant that he had already surrendered RBA certificate on 14.06.2024 and thereafter only, had applied for issuance of income certificate from Tehsildar Ramban. He has further argued that the Tehsildar Banihal very mischievously did not mention the factum of surrender of certificates as such, the enquiry conducted by the Committee was based on wrong and manipulated facts. He has further argued that in terms of section 19 of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004, a candidate belonging to more than one category is entitled to claim the benefit of reservation in one category only, as per his choice, for appointment/promotion in permanent Government Service or admission in professional institutions. The appellant had already exercised his option by surrendering the RBA certificate with Tehsildar, Banihal and for getting the benefit of EWS category for the purpose of obtaining admission in MBBS-UG-2024.
12
LPA No. 56/2025 & LPA No. 61/2025
14. Per contra, Mr. Pranav Kohli, learned senior counsel appearing for private respondent has argued that in terms of Rule 2 clause (ixa) of the J&K Reservation Rules, 2005, Economically Weaker Sections means persons who were not covered under the scheme of reservation for SCs, STs and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes as defined under clauses (m), (n) and clause (o) of Section 2 of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004 respectively and once the appellant was having an RBA category certificate, no certificate under EWS category could have been issued in favour of the appellant. He has further argued that story of surrendering of RBA certificate on 14.06.2024 has been manipulated by the appellant as the application placed on record by the appellant does not bear any endorsement of Tehsildar, Banihal to establish that it was submitted before him and in fact, there is nothing on record to show that such application was submitted before the Tehsildar, Banihal at any point of time. Similarly, the reports allegedly submitted by the Chowkidar, Lambardar and Sarpanch have been manipulated by the appellant as the reports are absolutely silent in respect of the authority, who sought such reports from Chowkidar, Lambardar and Sarpanch of the area. He has further submitted that due opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellant by the Tehsildar, Ramban before passing the order of withdrawal of EWS certificate as such, the appellant cannot claim to have been prejudiced by order dated 31.10.2024. He has laid much stress that in terms of 103rd amendment of the Constitution, the benefits of economic reservation are not available to the classes mentioned in 13 LPA No. 56/2025 & LPA No. 61/2025 clauses 4 and 5 of the Article 15 of the Constitution. He also placed much reliance upon the report of the Enquiry Committee to demonstrate that the appellant was guilty of fraud and misrepresentation. Mr. Kohli has further argued that if the appellant was aggrieved of order dated 31.10.2024, he ought to have availed the remedy of statutory appeal in terms of section 17 of the J&K Reservation Act 2004 but instead of availing the said remedy, he filed the writ petition which was not maintainable. He has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arshad Jamil v State of Uttrakhand and others, (2011) 9 SCC 313 and Janhit Abhiyan v Union of India, (2023) 5 SCC 1.
15. Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Senior AAG has produced the record in respect of the enquiry conducted pursuant to the order of Tehsildar, Ramban and has submitted that as per the information provided to Tehsildar, Ramban by the Tehsildar, Banihal, application dated 14.06.2024 was not received from Farooq Ahmed Shan S/o. Ghulam Mohd. Shan R/o. Kherpur, Banihal.
16. Heard and perused the record including the record produced by the official respondents and the writ court judgment. Appreciation:
17. A perusal of the judgment impugned by the appellant reveals that the learned writ court had framed following questions for its adjudication:
i) Whether an individual holding an RBA reservation certificate, without surrendering it, is eligible for an EWS certificate under SRO 518, which prohibits issuance of EWS certificates to those benefiting from other reservation categories?14
LPA No. 56/2025 & LPA No. 61/2025
ii) Whether the EWS certificate obtained by Mr. Mohd.
Umar Farooq, was secured through fraudulent means including concealment and misrepresentation of facts?
iii) Whether the issuing authority possesses the legal authority to revoke/withdraw the said certificate so issued?
iv) Whether the instant case constitutes an exceptional case in which alternate and efficacious remedy available to the parties can be bypassed, considering the circumstances and legal principles involved?
v) Whether the Writ petition, bearing no. WP(C) No. 2648/2024 is maintainable, considering it involves serious and disputed questions of fact?
vi) Whether the admission has been procured by the candidate by way of fraudulent means and if that is so then what will be the consequence of cancellation of the said certificate on the basis of which the admission has been secured?
18. An objection has been raised in respect of maintainability of the writ petition in view of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy of statutory appeal. Thought it was argued before us that the writ petition filed by the appellant was not maintainable because if he was aggrieved of the order of cancellation of the EWS certificate by the Tehsildar,Ramban, he ought to have availed the remedy of appeal as provided under section 17 of the J&K Reservation Act 2004, but at this stage, we do not deem it proper to adjudicate this issue, since the learned writ court has adjudicated the controversy on merits.
19. Following issues arise before this Court for its adjudication:
i) Whether the candidate has a choice of claiming the benefit of reservation in one category when he belongs to more than one category?
ii) Whether Tehsildar,Ramban had become functus officio after the issuance of EWS certificate in favour of the appellant and if the private respondent was aggrieved of the issuance of the 15 LPA No. 56/2025 & LPA No. 61/2025 certificate in favour of the appellant by Tehsildar Ramban, he ought to have availed the remedy of appeal?
iii) Whether the learned writ court has not considered the contention of the appellant that he had already surrendered the RBA certificate and Domicile certificate with Tehsildar,Banihal through the medium of application dated 14.06.2024?
iv) Whether the manipulated report was submitted by Tehsildar Banihal to Tehsildar Ramban whereby he did not mention about the application dated 14.06.2024 in respect of the surrender of the Domicile certificate and RBA certificate by the appellant?
20. Before this Court proceeds ahead to consider the rival contentions made by the parties, it is appropriate to take note of the position of law/rules in terms of J&K Reservation Act, 2004 and the Rules framed thereunder and the Article 15 of the Constitution.
21. Article 15 of the Constitution is extracted as under:
15. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth (1)The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
(2)No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to-
(a)access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or
(b)the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.
(3)Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.
(4)Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
16
LPA No. 56/2025 & LPA No. 61/2025 (5)Nothing in this article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 shall prevent the State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30. (6)Nothing in this article or sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 or clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making,--
(a)any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5); and
(b)any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5) in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30, which in the case of reservation would be in addition to the existing reservations and subject to a maximum of ten per cent. of the total seats in each category.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this article and article 16, "economically weaker sections" shall be such as may be notified by the State from time to time on the basis of family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage.
22. 103rd amendment of the Constitution of India made applicable with effect from 14.01.2019, provides that nothing in Article 15 or sub clause (g) of clause (1) of Article 19 or clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special reservation for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of the citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses(4) and (5) and further that any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of the citizens other than the classes mentioned in clause (4) and (5) insofar as such special provisions relate to their admission to their educational institutions including private institutions would be in addition to the existing reservations subject to a maximum of 10% of 17 LPA No. 56/2025 & LPA No. 61/2025 total seats in each category. In compliance and obedience to the mandate of the Constitution, SRO 518 dated 02.09.2019 was issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir in exercise of power conferred under section 23 of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004, whereby certain amendments were incorporated in the J&K Reservation Rules, 2005. Likewise, clause (ga) was added to section 2 of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004 and in Rule 2 of Reservation Rules, 2005, clause (ixa) was incorporated, which are extracted as under:
2(ga) " economicweaker sections meanssuch categories as may be notified by the Government from time to time,on the basis of family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage, other than classes or categories defined in clauses (m), (n) and (o).
2 (ixa) "Economically Weaker Sections (EWSs)" means persons:-
(i) Who are not covered under the scheme of reservation for SCs, STs and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes as defined under clause(m), clause(n) and clause (o) of section 2 of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004.
(ii) Whose family has gross annual income below Rs. 8.00 lakh(Rupees eight lakh only) and;
(iii) Whose family does not possess other assets as specified in proviso to clause (viii) of Rule 21.
23. Thus, as per the mandate of the Constitution and the J&K Reservation Act and Reservation Rules 2005, it is evident that the persons who are already covered under the scheme of reservation for SCs, STs and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes in terms of clauses (m),
(n) and (o) of section 2 of the J&K Reservation Act 2004 respectively, are not entitled to the benefit of the reservation of 10% provided for advancement of Economically Weaker Sections of the citizens of India. 18
LPA No. 56/2025 & LPA No. 61/2025 Issue No. 1 Whether the candidate has a choice of claiming the benefit of reservation in one category when he belongs to more than one category?
24. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has exercised his right of choice by applying for admission in NEET UG 2024 under EWS category, when he was entitled to the benefits of reservation under more than one category. Section 19 of the Reservation Act provides that a candidate belonging to more than one category shall be entitled to benefit of reservation in one category only as per his choice for admission in professional Institutions. The choice may be availed by a candidate belonging to SC, ST and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes category inter se provided the same is permissible and available but a candidate belonging to SC, ST and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes category, cannot avail the benefit of reservation meant for a candidate belonging to Economic Weaker Sections, in view of specific bar contained in the J&K Reservation Act and Reservation Rules 2005. General Administrative Department, Government of J&K has also issued a clarification dated 05.06.2020 stating therein that the persons, who are covered under the existing scheme of reservation at the Central level, namely Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes are not entitled for claiming the benefits under Economically Weaker Sections (EWSs) category and at the level of Union Territory of J&K, reserved categories 19 LPA No. 56/2025 & LPA No. 61/2025 falling under category of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and socially and educationally backward classes are not entitled for claiming the benefit under Economically Weaker Sections category. Therefore, there is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has exercised his choice in terms of section 19 of the Reservation Act, 2004.
Issue No. 2 Whether Tehsildar Ramban had become functus officio after the issuance of EWS certificate in favour of the appellant and if the private respondent was aggrieved of the issuance of the certificate in favour of the appellant by Tehsildar,Ramban, he ought to have availed the remedy of appeal?
25. Section 16 of the J&K Reservation Act provides that the competent authority within 15 days from the date of receipt of the application and for reasons to be recorded in writing either accept the application or reject it. In terms of section 17 of the Reservation Act, any person aggrieved by an order of the competent authority under section 16 before the expiry of 90 days, from the date of order issued by the competent authority, prefer an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner if the order has been passed against him by an officer below the rank of Deputy Commissioner in his capacity as competent authority or Divisional Commissioner if the order appealed against is passed by the Deputy Commissioner in his capacity as competent authority. Section 18 provides that the appellate authority may suo moto or an application 20 LPA No. 56/2025 & LPA No. 61/2025 made to it call for the record of the proceedings or orders made, by any competent authority for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such proceedings or orders and may pass such orders in reference thereto as it deems fit.
26. Similarly, Rule 25 of the Reservation Rules, 2005 provides that any person aggrieved by an order of rejection of the competent authority under Rule 23 may prefer an appeal to the appellate authority under section 17 of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004. These provisions were specifically stressed upon by the learned counsel for the appellant to demonstrate that the private respondent could have filed the appeal or revision, as the case may be, against the order of issuance of EWS certificate in favour of the appellant but instead of doing so, applied before the same authority i.e. Tehsildar Ramban for cancellation of the said certificate. Though the learned writ court in para 82 of the judgment has observed that the rules framed under the Act are subservient to the Act in the event of any anomaly or incongruity, but at the same time by placing reliance upon Rule 25 has proceeded to observe that the remedy of appeal is available only to a person aggrieved of an order of rejection by a competent authority under Rule 23 of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004 and the remedy available to a person other than a person who is aggrieved of the order of rejection of the application for grant of category certificate,is revision only provided in terms of section 18 of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004. The observations made by the learned writ court though are contradictory, 21 LPA No. 56/2025 & LPA No. 61/2025 but these observations may not detain this Court from considering the contention of the appellant that the Tehsildar, Ramban had become functus officioas such, had no jurisdiction/competence to cancel the EWS certificate issued in favour of the appellant. Needless to say, that in case of incongruence between the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, it is the Act that prevails over the Rules framed thereunder.
27. No doubt, the private respondent had a remedy of appeal or revision against the order in respect of issuance of EWS certificate in favour of appellant but where the allegations of fraud/misrepresentation have been levelled then it cannot be said that the authority issuing a certificate had become functus officio.Fraud vitiates all the proceedings and once it is established, any consequence or benefit emanating therefrom, shall be nothing but an absolute nullity in the eyes of law (See State of A.P. v. T. Suryachandra Rao, (2005) 6 SCC 149) and Union of India and others vs. Prohlad Guha Etc. 2024 INSC 603.
28. Further, in Arshad Jamil vs. State of Uttrakhand and other(supra), The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"11. Another order came to be issued on 2.3.2005, whereby the Tehsildar Roorkee, who was the competent authority, cancelled the caste certificate issued to the appellant on 29.6.2002 on the ground that after a detailed inquiry it was revealed that the appellant had obtained the caste certificate by showing himself a resident of Roorkee in a mischievous manner, while he was actually a permanent resident of Muzaffarnagar, and thereby he has misused the said caste certificate.
12.The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the legality and the validity of the order dated 02.03.2005. The said writ petition was registered as Writ Petition (Civil) No. 448 of 2005. The aforesaid writ petition, filed by the appellant, was allowed by the Uttrakhand High Court by 22 LPA No. 56/2025 & LPA No. 61/2025 its order dated 6.5.2005, whereby the High Court quashed the said order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, with liberty to the Tehsildar to issue notice to the appellant and to give reasonable opportunity to file his objections against the proposal to cancel the caste certificate.
13.Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant by the Tehsildar on 6.6.2005, calling upon him to show cause as to why the caste certificate issued to him on 29.6.2002 should not be cancelled, for the reasons stated in the said notice. The appellant submitted his reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. Thereafter, a second show cause notice dated 11.8.2005, in continuation of the notice dated 6.6.2005, was issued to Shri Arshad Jamil. After replies sent by the appellant, he was also given an opportunity to examine the documents on record by issuing a letter dated 11.8.2005 which was sent to his address House No. 7, Opposite Dev Nursing Home, Roorkee.
37. Consequently, we find no infirmity in the judgment and order dated 13.08.2008, in writ petition no. 08 of 2006 passed by the High Court, upholding the order of the Tehsildar cancelling the caste certificate of the appellant. The appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 13.08.2008 of the High Court fails."
(emphasis added)
29. In another judgment, the learned Single Judge of this Court in Suresh Sharma vs Union Territory of J&K and others, 2021 SLJ 165 has held as under:
"24.----------It is the categoric case of the petitioner that the respondent No.3 and 4 have managed RBA category certificates by misrepresentation, fraud and concealment of material facts. If that be the position, the petitioner is well within his rights to approach the authority which has granted the certificate and place before it the material to substantiate his allegations of misrepresentation, fraud and concealment of material facts.
25.------------Needless to say that the power to grant includes the power to withdraw or cancel. Otherwise also, any order or certificate obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of facts is nullity in the eye of law and, therefore, nothing prevents the authority, which was persuaded to pass such order or grant such certificate by misrepresentation, fraud or concealment of material facts, to make such declaration and cancel/withdraw the certificate so obtained/issued."
(emphasis added) 23 LPA No. 56/2025 & LPA No. 61/2025
30. This Court is of the considered view that once an authority is competent to issue certificate, the power to issue such a certificate would also inhere the power to cancel/withdraw the same when the certificate has been obtained by a person by way of fraud or misrepresentation or concealment of facts. Accordingly, it cannot be said that Tehsildar, Ramban had become functus officio after the issuance of EWS certificate in favour of appellant, when there were allegations that the certificate was obtained by fraud/misrepresentation. Therefore, there is no merit in this contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, as such, the same is rejected.
Issue Nos. 3 and 4 Issue Nos. 3 and 4 are interrelated, as such they are collated for adjudication.
Whether the learned writ court has not considered the contention of the appellant that he had already surrendered the RBA certificate and Domicile certificate with Tehsildar, Banihal through the medium of application dated 14.06.2024?and;
whether the manipulated report was submitted by Tehsildar, Banihal to Tehsildar, Ramban whereby he did not mention about the application dated 14.06.2024 in respect of the surrender of the Domicile certificate and RBA certificate of the appellant?
31. It was strenuously urged before this Court that the appellant had surrendered his Domicile certificate and Resident of Backward Area 24 LPA No. 56/2025 & LPA No. 61/2025 certificate with Tehsildar,Banihal, but the learned writ court has not appreciated this contention of the appellant. On the contrary it was vehemently contended by the learned senior counsel for the private respondent that the story of surrendering the certificate was an afterthought and manipulated by the appellant to wriggle out of the fraudulent act committed by the appellant in procuring the EWS certificate, to which the appellant was never entitled to. This is an admitted fact that the appellant was resident of Banihal and possessed of Resident of Backward Area certificate issued in 2016 having validity till 2026.
32. A perusal of the application dated 14.06.2024 reveals that the same has been allegedly filed by the father of the appellant and not the appellant. This assumes significance as the appellant was not a 'minor', when the application was allegedly submitted because in that eventuality only, such application could have been filed by the father of the appellant. This Court finds substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the private respondent that there is nothing on record to show that such application was filed by the appellant or his father with Tehsildar Banihal, as the photocopy of the said application does not bear any endorsement in respect of the receipt of the said application by office of Tehsildar, Banihal and also there is no acknowledgement/receipt issuedby Tehsildar Banihal in respect of receipt of such application.
25
LPA No. 56/2025 & LPA No. 61/2025
33. Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG has produced the record which contains the communication dated 27.05.2025 addressed by the Tehsildar,Banihal to Tehsildar,Ramban wherein it is stated that as per In-charge,receipt and dispatch section of this office (Tehsildar Banihal), no application dated 14.06.2024 of Sh. Farooq Mohd. Shan S/o. Ghulam Mohd. Ahmed Shah, R/o. Kherkoot, Banihal regarding surrendering of Domicile certificate and RBA Certificate of his son, namely, Umar Farooq has been received.
34. Further the so-called reports of Lambadar, Chowkidar and Sarpanch relied upon heavily by the appellant are also silent, as pursuant to whose directions, these reports were prepared. It is evident that the application dated 14.06.2024 along with supporting documents have been manipulated just to protect the admission obtained by the appellant on the basis of EWS certificate procured by concealment of facts.
35. There is yet another application dated 26.09.2024 addressed to the Tehsildar,Banihal for cancellation of the RBA and Domicile certificates submitted by the father of the appellant and in that application, it is stated that earlier he had submitted an application in the month of 'May 2024' with Tehsildar,Banihal for surrendering of aforesaid certificates. This application dated 14.06.2024 has been manipulated to protect EWS certificate issued in favour of the appellant.
36. The record further depicts that after the Tehsildar,Ramban obtained the complaint in respect of the EWS certificate of the appellant, he constituted a committee comprising of Naib-Tehsildar Ramban- 26
LPA No. 56/2025 & LPA No. 61/2025 Chairman, Patwari Halqa Ramban, Girdhawar Circle Ramban and office Patwari as members of the committee. The report depicts that the appellant was summoned, and report was requisitioned from Tehsildar Banihal, wherein he had reported that father of the appellant had approached his office on 16.10.2024(after the filing of complaint dated 17.09.2024) and submitted an affidavit expressing his intention to surrender Domicile and RBA category certificates previously issued to his son. After taking note of the factual aspects of the case, following findings and conclusion were returned by the Committee:
"Finding of the Committee:
The inquiry into the matter concerning the issuance of the EWS (Economically Weaker Section) certificate has reached its conclusion following a comprehensive and meticulous review of all relevant documents, thorough verification processes, and the oral testimonies provided by the non-applicant. The findings of this inquiry unequivocally indicate that the non-applicant has intentionally concealed material facts regarding his actual residence while submitting his online applications for the EWS certificate.
The non-applicants actions demonstrate a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth, which is a violation of the principles governing the issuance of such certificates. This concealment of critical information not only undermines the integrity of the application process but also raises serious concerns regarding the legitimacy of the benefits sought by the non-applicant.
Additionally, a judicial affidavit submitted by the father of the non-applicant has been taken into consideration. In this affidavit, he asserts that all information provided is accurate and complete, and he acknowledges that if any aspect of the stated information is found to be false or misleading at any pointin the future, he will accept legal consequences under the relevant provisions of the law. Furthermore, he acknowledges that any benefits accrued from such false information would be subject to forfeiture.
Conclusion:
In light of these findings and the explicit acknowledgement of potential legal repercussions, it is imperative to act decisively to uphold the integrity of the 27 LPA No. 56/2025 & LPA No. 61/2025 reservation system and the associated benefits. The committee, after careful deliberation, recommends the cancellation of the EWS certificate issued in favour of the non-applicant. This action is deemed necessary not only to rectify the situation but also to prevent further litigation and potential misuse of the benefits associated with the EWS category.
The recommendation for cancellation of the EWS certificate serves the larger interest of maintaining the credibility of the process, ensuring that such certificates are awarded only to those who meet the eligibility criteria honestly and transparently. It is essential that all relevant authorities take immediate steps to implement this recommendation, thereby reinforcing the principles of fairness and justice within the frame of the EWS benefits program.
This report is hereby submitted for your consideration and appropriate action;"
37. The Enquiry Committee has submitted a detailed report thereby establishing that the EWS certificate was obtained fraudulently by the appellant and accordingly recommended for its cancellation. Tehsildar, Ramban after examining the detailed enquiry report cancelled the EWS certificate vide order No. TR/BCG/2024-25/63-71vide dated 31.10.2024. This court does not find any illegality in the action of Tehsildar, Ramban in cancelling the EWS certificate issued in favour of appellant, as Tehsildar, Banihal has categorically stated that application dated 14.06.2024 was never filed with his office.Accordingly, these contentions of the appellant, too are misconceived and deserve to be rejected.
Conclusion:
38. For all what has been discussed, considered and analysed hereinabove, we are not inclined to take a view other than the one taken by the 28 LPA No. 56/2025 & LPA No. 61/2025 learned writ court, as there is neither any illegality nor impropriety in the judgment impugned rendered by the learned writ court. As such, these appeals are found to be devoid of any merit. The same are, accordingly, dismissed.
39. Record, if any, received in original be sent back to the concerned.
(RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
SRINAGAR:
04.07.2025
Rakesh PS
Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: Yes
Rakesh Kumar
2025.07.14 11:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document