UFAIRA RASHID Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. Heard the LC for the parties. Respondent No. 2 had declined to issue the certificate under SRO 126 of 1994 in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the family of the petitioner had ceased to be resident of Gogji Pathri and the Tehsildar had also come to a conclusion that the family resides at Batamaloo, Srinagar.

(2.) The petitioner challenged the order of respondent No. 2 before the Deputy Commissioner (DC), who is an appellate authority prescribed under SRO 126, the appeal of the petitioner came to be allowed and respondent No. 2 was placed under direction to issue a backward area certificate in favour of the petitioner after consideration of the case. Respondent No. 2 did not issue the certificate despite directions from the DC (Deputy Commissioner). Consequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing No. 126/97. In compliance to the directions of the Court respondent No. 2 filed objections before the Court through Mr. R. A. Khan, Ld. GA and in the objections it has been specifically pleaded that the Deputy Commissioner's order required him to issue the certificate after consideration of the case, therefore, the matter required an enquiry afresh, accordingly enquiry was initiated for issuance of the certificate and such enquiry revealed that the petitioner's mother is a teacher and her father is also a government employee and their annual income is Rs. 1,43,064.00 and respondent No. 2 came to a conclusion on the above reasons that the petitioner does not fall within the category of socially and educationally backward classes which resulted in rejection of the application.

(3.) LC for the petitioner has contended that respondent No. 2 has no opinion but to issue the certificate because he has been directed to do so by the Appellate authority (DC). It is also contended at the bar that respondent No. 2 has issued a certificate in favour of one Miss Shugufta, who is daughter of Mr. Abdul Rahim Rather, a Cabinet Minister, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to be treated alike.