The rejection of an EWS certificate without affording a fair opportunity to present evidence violates principles of natural justice, warranting judicial intervention.

ORDER :

1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has sought the following reliefs.

A. By allowing the petition by issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside the order of respondent no. 3 rejecting the petitioner’s application for an EWS certificate on 2.11.2024.

B. By allowing the petition by issuing writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue EWS certificate in favour of the petitioner.

C. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to re-evaluate the petitioner’s eligibility for an EWS certificate by affording a fair opportunity to present evidence and witnesses.

D. Any order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the petitioner.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the instant petition, as pleaded by the petitioner, are that the petitioner claiming to belong to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) applied Online through application no. JK-Rev-EWS/2024/19975 dated 13-08-2024 to the respondents for issuance of an EWS certificate under and in terms of the J&K Reservation Rules of 2005. The petitioner contends that despite meeting the income criteria for EWS eligibility, her application for issuance of EWS certificate was rejected by the respondents, despite her family's gross annual income from all sources reckoning to Rs.1,20,000/- having been certified by Tehsildar concerned in certificate no. JK-REV- INC/2024/215070 dated 5-8-2024, which is well below Rs. 8.00 lacs, the threshold prescribed under the Rules of 2005. In addition, the petitioner asserts that her family does not possess any disqualifying asset/s as per the provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules of 2005 which includes agriculture land, residential plot, or plot exceeding specified dimensions and despite this, the respondents have rejected the application of the petitioner based on a report from the concerned Patwari who erroneously recorded that the petitioner's father owns a three-storeyed house constructed over five marlas of land overlooking the fact that the said property was inherited jointly by the petitioner's father, her paternal uncle and her three paternal aunts upon the death of their father.

3. The petitioner has also pleaded that a certificate under the Rules of 2005 for belonging to EWS category was earlier issued by the respondents in her favour, initially vide certificate no. 1067/MM/TEG/22 dated 14-12-2022 for the year 2022-23, followed by another certificate bearing no. 330/MM/TEG/23 dated 16-6-2023 for the year 2023-24, both certificates have been placed on record with the petition.

4. The petitioner contends that the respondents acted arbitrarily by rejecting her claim for issuance of certificate in question now, disregarding her family's financial status as also their jointly inherited property and that the respondents did not provide the petitioner or her father an opportunity to present additional evidence or witnesses to substantiate her claim for issuance of the certificate in question while pleading further that the committee set up to review the matter as well failed to conduct an independent inquiry into the matter and instead reported erroneous findings based on the report of the Patwari.

5. Upon coming up this matter for consideration and having regard to the case set up by the petitioner in the instant petition as also the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as that the time is of essence in the matter, it is deemed appropriate not to retain this petition on board but to dispose of the same at this stage. Accordingly, Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG, present, on asking of the court enters appearance and waives notice on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Qadri is not averse to the disposal of the petition at this stage.

6. It is significant to mention here that Econ