1. These two petitions being two sides of the same controversy are taken up together for common disposal.

A.) Way back in 1998 vide notice published on 14th May, the respondent/PSC sought candidature for appointments against 33 posts of Munsiffs reserving six therefrom for RBA category. In March/April, 1999 examinations for selection of candidates for Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Judicial) were conducted and the list of selected candidates include respondent No. 6 in SWP No. 973 of 2000 and petitioner in SWP No. 1755 of 2000 under RBA category forwarded to Government who along with others yet appointed as Munsiffs under order No. 662/LD (A) of 2000 dated: 20.4.2000. Expressing grievance against that the petitioner in Writ petition No. 973 above mentioned claiming to have appeared at said examination and figuring in waiting list challenged the selection/appointment of 6th respondent on the ground that he had manipulated his category certificate of RBA category on basis whereof he was selected and accordingly prayed for quashment of his selection and the consequential appointment. This petition being No. 973 appears to have been instituted in this court on 25.7.2000.

B. Around four months thereafter i.e. on 8.11.2000 6th respondent in aforesaid petition instituted writ petition No. 1755/2000 in this court seeking quashment of a communication addressed by Divisional Commissioner to Dy. Commissioner, Baramulla under his No. Div. Com./LRB/BLA/20 dated: 30.5.2000 directing an enquiry against alleged fakery of petitioners RBA category certificate on basis of a representation reportedly received by him. A mandatory direction against functionaries of the Government for prohibiting such inquiry till disposal of the earlier writ petition was also prayed for. Accordingly the main question emerging in both writ petitions is the genuineness/fakery of the RBA category certificate forming basis of the selection/appointment of petitioner in petition No. 1755, the sixth respondent in petition No. 973, both of 2000; namely Shri Mohd Yousuf Allai.

2. Factual position of the case appears to be that Shri Allai, is originally a resident of village Mirgund of Tehsil Pattan but claims to have shifted to the scheduled backward village Shilvat of Tehsil Sonwari somewhere in 1982 to which effect a certificate is claimed to have been issued by Tehsildar, Sonwari on 3.12.1996 in terms of SRO 126 of 1994" whereunder any person residing in a backward area for 15 years could claim the benefit of being a resident of backward area. To counter this the facts pleaded by his rival are that Shri Allai appeared in KCS(J) examinations of 1994 and 1996 also wherein he applied under open merit category showing village Mirgund as place of his residence and not Shilwat, as he would have had he been a resident of that village. Projected alongwith this, is a stream of circumstances, having bearing on the matter. The academic record including his Matriculation and LLB certificates show Sh. Allai to be a resident of Mirgund village as also his enrolment as an Advocate has been reflected in his application form of 1994 and 1996 whereunder he sought candidature in KCS (J). Coupled with this are the certificates purporting to have been issued by concerned Chowkidar of village Shilvat regarding petitioners residence in that village where he claims to have received landed property by way of gift. A comparative assessment of the documents relied upon by rival sides as aforesaid tilts the probabilities against Shri Allais claims of having been a resident of village Shilvat because all certificates which ordinarily carry a presumption of authenticity regarding their contents, that is, the Matriculation Certificate issued by BOSE, Degree Certificate issued by the University, and the enrolment certificate issued by High Court, all show him to be a resident of village Mirgund Tehsil Pattan against Chowkidar and Lambardars written information and the ration ticket relied upon by hi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document