Judgment

1. The petitioner, in this petition, has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:

(I) Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the reserve category (RBA) certificates issued by the competent authority in favour of respondent No.3 and 4 in the year 2008 and 2007 respectively, as null and void;

(II) Writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash order No.111-HMED of 2009 dated 02.03.2009 and Government Order No.438-HME of 2008 dated 26.05.2008, whereby and where under the respondent No.3 and 4 respectively have been promoted as Incharge ADMOs in the department of ISM;

(III) Writ in the nature of Prohibition, restraining the official respondents from regularizing incharge promotion of the respondent No.3 and 4;

2. The short grievance of the petitioner, as projected in this petition, is that respondent No.3 and 4 have, by concealment of material facts and by playing fraud have obtained category certificates and on the basis thereof have succeeded in getting accelerated promotion.

3. Before adverting to the challenge made to the impugned certificates and the impugned orders, it would be appropriate to, briefly, notice few material facts.

4. Both the respondent No.3 and 4 are substantively holding the post of Medical Officer (Ayurvedic) in ISM department of Union Territory since the year 2001 and 2000 respectively. Both, as claimed, were selected and appointed as Medical Officers (Ayurvedic) as general category candidates.

5. It is alleged that the respondent No.3 in the year 2006 applied for issuance of RBA category certificate to the competent authority. Tehsildar, Kishtwar, the competent authority, issued RBA category certificate in favour of respondent No.3 on 8th of March, 2006, purportedly, under SRO 126 of 1994, though in the year 2006, the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004 and the rules framed there-under vide SRO 294 of 2005, had already come into operation.

6. It is the further allegation of the petitioner that the respondent No.3 without surrendering his RBA certificate issued in the year 2006, once again applied for RBA category certificate to the competent authority on 28th of August, 2008 and got a fresh certificate issued in his favour on 12th of September, 2008.

7. With regard to respondent No.4, it is contended that he applied for the category certificate on 27th of December, 2006 and the same was issued to him by the competent authority on 6th of January, 2007

8. It is also pleaded by the petitioner that with regard to issuance of RBA category certificate in favour of respondent no.3 by Tehsildar, Kishtawar on 12th of September, 2008, a criminal complaint under Section 417, 418, 420 and 468 of RPC was registered in Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu. The Crime Branch conducted the preliminary enquiry and found that the allegations made against respondent No.3 were not proved. The complainant, Mr. Anil Kant Gupta, filed a protest petition before learned Magistrate to whom the status report had been submitted by the Crime Branch and the learned Magistrate vide order dated 14th March, 2017, did not accept the status report and directed further enquiry in the matter. Against this order of Magistrate, the respondent No.3 filed a quashment petition before this Court wherein this Court has stayed the operation of the impugned order.

9. In the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner has assailed the validity and sustainability of the RBA certificates issued by the competent authority in favour of respondent No.3 and 4. The reliefs prayed for in the petition have been sought, inter alia, on the following grounds:

1. That the impugned RBA certificate issued in favour of respondent No.3 is invalid for the reason that in the face of existence of earlier RBA certificate issued in the year 2006, the second category certificate could not have been applied for by respondent No.3 and issued by the competent authority;

2. That the respondent No.3 was not entitled to the issuance of certificate for the reason that in te