Disposed

Mohammad Maroof Bajran v. High Court of J and K and Ladakh and Ors.

J&K HC15 Sept 2021WP(C)/1710/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

I. The petitioners, ST category candidates, questioned the authenticity of respondent No.7's caste certificate. II. The court directed verification of respondent No.7's testimonials and declared appointment subject to said verification before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to High Court to verify testimonials of respondent No.7 expeditiously; appointment subject to verification.

Mohammad Maroof Bajran Vs High Court of J and K and… — Service and Employment | J&K HC (2021)

¶1

Sr. No.01

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

¶3

CJ Court

¶4

WP(C) No.1710/2021

¶5

Mohammad Maroof Bajran …Petitioner(s)/Appellants.

¶6

Through: Mr Mufti Mehraj ud Din, Advocate.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

High Court of J&K and Ladakh & Ors.

¶9

….Respondent(s)

¶10

Through:

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE

¶12

O R D E R 15.09.2021

¶13

Heard Mr Mufti Mehraj ud Din, learned counsel for the petitioner. 02. Petitioner belongs to a sub-cast (Bajran) of Gojjar and Bakerwal community and falls in the category of Schedule Tribe. He applied for appointment on the post of a Driver in the High Court and he is in the waiting list at sr.no.1 of the ST candidates. According to him, respondent No.7 does not belong to any sub-cast of the Gojjar and Bakerwal community and, therefore, the cast certificate of ST produced by him is a fake document.

¶14

The petitioner, therefore, prays that respondents 2 to 4 may not appoint him unless his certificate is got verified from the concerned authority and if his certificate is found fake, the petitioner be appointed in his place.

¶15

The notification of the High Court issued by the Registrar General on 26.07.2021 declares the names of the persons selected and recommended for appointment. It specifically states that the appointments are subject to the condition that if anything is found adverse against the appointee during the course of verification of his character, antecedents or

¶16

the testimonials, appointment of such candidate shall be liable to be cancelled without any notice.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid condition imposed in issuing appointments to the selected candidates, it is apparent that all testimonials of appointees have to be verified and appointment is subject to verification of such testimonials.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not deem it necessary to interfere in the matter at this stage and dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the High Court to specifically get the testimonials of respondent No.7 verified as expeditiously as possible and it is made clear that the appointment of respondent No.7 shall be subject to the above verification.

¶19

Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶20

(VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) (PANKAJ MITHAL) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

Srinagar

15.09.2021

Abdul Qayoom, PS

ABDUL QAYOOM LONE 2021.09.16 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mohammad Maroof Bajran v. High Court of J and K and Ladakh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Maroof Bajran v. High Court of J and K and Ladakh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kashmiri Pandit Sangarash Samiti Vs Union of India and Ors. (Home/Hrd Ministry)

Ghulam Ahmad Mir Vs G. M. Dar and Ors. (Revenue Department)

Sheikh Shaheen Iqbal and Others Vs State of Jk and Others. (Revenue Deptt)

B. B. Vyas and Ors. (Health and Medical Education Department) Vs Waseem Qureshi

State of J and K and Anr. (General Administration Department) Vs Aijaz Muzaffar

Baba Chemicals through Its Prop Amir Khan Batla Vs State of J and K and Ors. (Industries and Commerce Department)