ARSHAD HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIRCUMSTANCES under which this petition has come to be filed in this court be noticed. The petitioner is seeking a Government job. He wanted to take benefits of "Resident of Backward Area" category. For this a certificate is supposed to be issued by the concerned Tehsildar of the Area. Tehsildar Doda rejected the application on 18th of November, 1997. It was held that the income of the brother of the petitioner could not be excluded in determining the income of petitioners family.

(2.) UNDER rules an appeal was preferred. This appeal was taken up for consideration. An order came to be passed by the appellant authority on 15th of December, 1997. The appellate authority was faced with the question as to whether the income of the brother could be excluded while determining the income of the family of the petitioner. Appellant authority even though came to the conclusion that this requires to be examined in depth and sought legal opinion, at the same time the appeal was rejected also. Para 13 of the order passed by Deputy Commissioner Doda reads as under: "In such circumstances, the undersigned is in agreement with the procedure adopted by Tehsildar Doda for calculation of income of the family of the appellant. However, we would like to have a legal opinion in the matter. Accordingly, it is requested that necessary guidelines regarding the issue, whether the procedure adopted by Tehsildar Doda for calculation of income of appellant is correct or not may kindly be issued".

(3.) IN my opinion income of the brother of the petitioner could not be taken into consideration while determining the income of the petitioners family which consists of the petitioner and his father. It would be advantageous to take notice of the decision in the case reported as Bhagwan Ji Mohan Bath Kathua versus State of Gujrat 1996(1) SCT364. In the above case it was held that the income of the brother of the person seeking Government job could not be included in the income of such a persons family. When taking income of the brother, the appointment was denied, this was held to be bad. What was said in the aforementioned decision would apply to the facts of this case also. The income of the brother has to be excluded.