SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has refused to quash an FIR against an assistant professor accused of fraudulently obtaining a Reserved Backward Area (RBA) certificate and using it to secure government employment.
Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed a petition filed by Qulsum Akhter challenging FIR No. 9/2025 registered at the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Crime Branch, Srinagar, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the RPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
According to the FIR, Akhter was selected as an Assistant Professor in Biochemistry under the RBA category in 2019 on the strength of an RBA certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Handwara, in June 2013.
The investigation found that she had married Riyaz Ahmad Mir, a resident of Handwara, on July 7, 2011, and obtained the RBA certificate about two years later by claiming residence in a backward area of Handwara.
The court noted that under the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005, a person seeking the benefit of backward-area status was required to establish residence in the area for at least 15 years before applying and to be actually residing there. The investigation found that the petitioner had resided in the area for only two years when she applied for the certificate.
The investigation also found that the certificate had allegedly been issued on the basis of incorrect reports by revenue officials and that the petitioner subsequently produced it before the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission, securing appointment as Assistant Professor in Biochemistry in 2019.
The court said the material collected during the investigation showed that the concerned Patwari, Girdawar, Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar had allegedly abused their official positions in preparing the documents.
The investigation further found that the file relating to the RBA certificate had gone missing from the Tehsil office. It also found that the signatures on the renewed certificate were not those of the concerned Tehsildar and that entries in the dispatch register had been tampered with to show that the renewed certificate had been officially issued.
The High Court observed that while the original 2013 certificate had been issued by the competent authority and the offence of forgery in respect of that document may not ultimately be established, the allegations and material on record prima facie attracted offences relating to cheating and misconduct by public servants.
The court said the renewed RBA certificate was prima facie forged and that there was material indicating tampering with official records.
It further held that the case was not merely one of violation of reservation rules, observing that the material prima facie showed the petitioner had, in league with revenue officials, fraudulently obtained the RBA certificate and its renewal and used them for securing public employment.
The court also rejected the petitioner’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the Economic Offences Wing, holding that offences relating to documents fall within the jurisdiction assigned to the EOW under the relevant government notification.
Finding that cognisable offences were prima facie made out and that there was sufficient material in the case diary, Justice Dhar declined to exercise the court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR and dismissed the petition.
