Click the Play button to listen to article

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that a candidate cannot be denied consideration for appointment as Lambardar merely because of the alleged militant or anti-national antecedents of his relatives, particularly when no illegal activity has been attributed to the candidate himself.

The Court set aside an order appointing another person as temporary Lambardar of Village Sangam, Srinagar, after finding that the petitioner's candidature had not been considered on account of an adverse CID verification report concerning his maternal uncles.

A Single Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed that “no illegal activity has been attributed to the petitioner” and that the report had merely alleged, on the basis of his uncles' antecedents, that he belonged to a family having affiliations with anti-national or secessionist elements. The Court held that such a report could not form the basis for rejecting his candidature.

Background

The petitioner, Zahoor Ahmad Bhat, had challenged an order whereby respondent No. 7 was appointed as temporary Lambardar of Village Sangam, until further orders or until a regular selection under Rule 14(1) of the J&K Lambardar Rules was conducted by the competent authority.

The petitioner contended that he had also applied for the post but his candidature was not considered because of an adverse report submitted by the intelligence agency, which referred to the antecedents of his maternal uncle, who had allegedly been an ex-militant in 1990.

In its response, the CID stated that the verification exercise had revealed that the petitioner's maternal uncle, Mohd. Maqbool Bhat, was a Local Trained Terrorist during 1990 and had been apprehended by security forces in 1992. The report further stated that he continued to espouse pro-secessionist and anti-national ideology.

The CID also referred to another maternal uncle, Abdul Majeed Bhat, who had been involved in FIR under Sections 7/25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Soura. On the basis of these antecedents, the CID reported that the petitioner belonged to a family whose members, including extended relatives, had been found to harbour and propagate anti-national and pro-secessionist sentiments.

The official respondents, meanwhile, stated that the earlier Lambardar, Sajad Ahmad Bhat, had resigned from the post, following which the office had proposed two names for the position, namely the petitioner and respondent No. 7. They also stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, had directed that an appointment order be issued in favour of Mohammad Ashraf Yatoo, but no confirmation order had been received from the competent authority.

Court's Observation

After examining the pleadings and the material on record, the High Court noted that the petitioner's candidature had not been considered because of the adverse verification report submitted by the CID.

The Court specifically examined the contents of the CID's response and found that the allegations contained therein did not attribute any illegal activity to the petitioner himself.

In this regard, Justice Oswal observed,

“A perusal of the reply filed by CID reveals that no illegal activity has been attributed to the petitioner and rather on the basis of antecedents of his uncles, the petitioner has been alleged to be belonging to the family of persons having affiliation with anti-national/secessionist elements.”

The Court thereafter categorically held,

“In the opinion of this court, this report can't be basis for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner.”

The Court thus found that the adverse report, which was founded on the antecedents of the petitioner's maternal uncles rather than any alleged illegal activity on his part, could not be relied upon to deny him an opportunity to participate in the selection process.

Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the order appointing respondent No. 7 as temporary Lambardar of Village Sangam. The Court directed the respondents to hold an election for the post of Lambardar of Village Sangam within three months and specifically ordered that the adverse report submitted by the CID “shall not come in the way of the petitioner for participating in the election process for the post of Lamberdar for Village Sangam.”



Tags: