High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in a bench comprising the Hon’ble Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal held that the Additional Deputy Commissioner has no authority to cancel a Social Cate Certificate under the J&K Reservation Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reservation Act’) rather this power rests only with the Deputy or Divisional Commissioner.
Brief Facts of the Case:
In 2006, the Petitioner was declared a member of the Hajam social caste group and a certificate with a five-year validity period was issued. The certificate was renewed in 2013 but was later revoked in 2018. The cancellation was questioned by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Kulgam, who also questioned the inquiries and steps conducted in response to a complaint lodged by Muzafar Gul Wagay. The question before the Hon’ble Court was whether the social caste certificate was issued in violation of the 2005 Reservation Rules.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner's attorney claimed that Rule 22 (i) requires two requirements to be completed for a Social Cast Certificate to be cancelled. The Petitioner must first live with their parents and be financially dependent on them. Since the Petitioner is not financially reliant on his parents, the rule does not apply to him. The private Respondent has not filed an appeal or revision under Sections 17 or 18 of the Reservation Act, and the Additional Deputy Commissioner lacks the authority to make such decisions. The Petitioner further claims that the procedure for confirming the certificate, which has not been followed, must be followed.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Respondents contended that the certificate was obtained fraudulently, in violation of rules prohibiting misleading income and father's identification information. They stated that the Principal of the Government Higher Secondary School gave pay information, but the Petitioner and his father's income surpassed the ceiling limit. The Respondents contend that the certificate was revoked following a comprehensive investigation and review. According to the learned counsel, Rule 22(i) only applies if the incumbent lives with their parents and is financially reliant on them.
Observations of the Court:
The Reservation Act and the Reservation Rules of 2005 restrict government employees earning more than Rs.4.50 lacs from claiming socially and educationally backward class benefits. Individuals who have completed their full school education from a backward area or adjacent to the line of control are excluded from the requirements, which include standards for estimating annual income. The Court determined that a son or daughter is no longer financially reliant on their father for the Reservation Rules but the power to cancel the Certificate rests with the Deputy or Divisional Commissioner only and not with the Additional Deputy.
The Decision of the Court:
The plea was granted, and the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Kulgam cancelling the Petitioner's Social Caste Certificate was reversed. The petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. was also granted, and the investigation and action taken by Muzafar Gul Wagay, a private Respondent, was overturned.
Case Title: Hakeem Muzafar Khaliq vs. Inspector General, Crime Branch, Srinagar and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal
Case No.: CRMC No. 501/2018 c/w OWP No. 2276/2018
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Arif Sikandar Mir
Advocates for Respondents: Adv. Alla Ud Din Ganai, AAG, Adv. Mubashir Majid Malik, Dy. AG
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
