MOHD YOUSAF ALLAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions being two sides of the same controversy are taken up together for common disposal.

(2.) FACTUAL position of the case appears to be that Shri Allai, is originally a resident of village Mirgund of Tehsil Pattan but claims to have shifted to the scheduled backward village Shilvat of Tehsil Sonwari somewhere in 1982 to which effect a certificate is claimed to have been issued by Tehsildar, Sonwari on 3.12.1996 in terms of SRO 126 of 1994" whereunder any person residing in a backward area for 15 years could claim the benefit of being a resident of backward area. To counter this the facts pleaded by his rival are that Shri Allai appeared in KCS(J) examinations of 1994 and 1996 also wherein he applied under open merit category showing village Mirgund as place of his residence and not Shilwat, as he would have had he been a resident of that village. Projected alongwith this, is a stream of circumstances, having bearing on the matter. The academic record including his Matriculation and LLB certificates show Sh. Allai to be a resident of Mirgund village as also his enrolment as an Advocate has been reflected in his application form of 1994 and 1996 whereunder he sought candidature in KCS (J). Coupled with this are the certificates purporting to have been issued by concerned Chowkidar of village Shilvat regarding petitioners residence in that village where he claims to have received landed property by way of gift. A comparative assessment of the documents relied upon by rival sides as aforesaid tilts the probabilities against Shri Allais claims of having been a resident of village Shilvat because all certificates which ordinarily carry a presumption of authenticity regarding their contents, that is, the Matriculation Certificate issued by BOSE, Degree Certificate issued by the University, and the enrolment certificate issued by High Court, all show him to be a resident of village Mirgund Tehsil Pattan against Chowkidar and Lambardars written information and the ration ticket relied upon by him appear to be frivolous.

(3.) THIS controversy mystery surrounding the matter might perhaps have been resolved had the enquiry ordered by Divisional Commissioner in the matter vide aforementioned communication been allowed to be concluded, which incidentally count not happen due to the prohibitory order passed in Sh. Allais writ petition No. 1755/2000 whereunder all authorities of State who restrained from conducting the enquiry; which those could not even take off; in view whereof this court appears to have felt constrained to direct an inquiry in the matter by Registrar Vigilance of this court on 11.8.2003 in following terms: