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 has ceased to be resident of Gogji Pathri and the Tehsildar has also come to a conclusion that the family resides at Batamaloa, 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 Commissioners order required him to issue the certificate after consideration of the case, therefore the matter required an enquiry a fresh, accordingly enquiry was initiated for issuance of the certificate and such enquiry revealed that the petitioners 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 option 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.

4. The order of DC assumes significance and the issue involved needs the examination as to whether the respondent No. 2 was bound to issue the certificate without enquiry a fresh. Without dilating upon the submission in depth, it is relevant to mention that the DC directed the Tehsildar to issue the certificate after consideration of the case. The direction of the DC to respondent No. 2 is unambiguous and casts an obligation on respondent No. 2 to consider the matter and consideration is only possible in accordance with the rules. The respondent No. 2 has stated in his objections which are supported by an affidavit that the case was examined, but questions entitlement of the petitioner, he had also produced an order which has been passed by him on 09/10/1997 and examination of the said order leaves no room for the court to doubt the statement of respondent (2). Examining the matter on the strength of averments made in the reply, coupled with the contents of the order dated 09/10/1997 passed by respondent No. 2.1 hold that respondent No. 2 in no respect violated the order of appellate authority, conversely, the order of the appellate authority (DC) has been adhered to be respondent No. 2 therefore, petitioners this ground of challenge is not sustainable.

5. This brings me to the plea of discrimination taken by the LC for the petitioner, who has contended that a certificate has been issued in favour of one Miss Shugufta, daughter of a Cabinet Minister. It is relevant to notice here that similarly circumstanced persons are no doubt to be treated alike but subject to availability of enforceable right a relief granted to a person in contravention to law does not create an enforceable right in favour of similarly situated persons and no equality can be claimed in respect of a wrong action of the state because concept of equality is positive and not negative and suffice to say that the relief on the basis of wrong omissions and commissions un

Click Here to Read the rest of this document