Ummer Hassan Rather vs HOME DEPARTMENT on 26 October 2026

1. The facts of the case are that the respondent Board, vide Advertisement Notification No. 01 of 2024 dated 16.07.2024, invited applications for the post of Constable in the Home Department, including Constable (Telecommunication). The applicant, being eligible and serving as a Special Police Officer (SPO), applied under the SPO category. The prescribed selection process comprised a written examination, Physical Standard Test (PST) and Physical Endurance Test (PET), the latter two being qualifying in nature.

2. Thereafter, the applicant appeared in the written examination held on 08.12.2024 under Roll No. 70150157. After publication of the written examination result on 20.01.2025, he participated in the subsequent stages of selection. Vide notification dated 04.12.2025, the respondent Board called candidates falling within the consideration zone for document verification, wherein the applicant's name figured at serial no. 522-KMR. During verification, the applicant submitted a certificate issued by the District Police Headquarters, Anantnag, confirming that he was serving as an SPO and borne on the rolls of the SPOs of District Police Anantnag.

3. Vide Notification No. 12 of 2026 dated 20.02.2026, the respondent Board published the final selection list for 502 posts of Constable (Telecommunication), in which the applicant figured at serial no. 160. Subsequently, vide notice dated 16.03.2026, the selected candidates were directed to complete personal verification formalities for issuance of appointment orders. In compliance therewith, the applicant submitted his online Personal Verification Roll (PVR) under Form No. 152279. The Central Verification System form generated on 24.03.2026 recorded that the applicant had been serving as an SPO in District Anantnag since 08.06.2021 and was then attached to the office of ESU Shopian.

4. While filling in the PVR, the applicant inadvertently marked a particular entry concerning legal proceedings or prosecutions against family members and close relatives in the negative. As stated, the error occurred because the preceding seven entries, which he had also marked in the negative, concerned individual-specific information, leading him mistakenly to mark the subsequent entry in the same manner. Meanwhile, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Shopian, issued a certificate dated 07.10.2025 appreciating the applicant's performance and duties as an SPO during the year 2024-25.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that despite the passage of more than five months from submission of the PVR, the verification report was not communicated to the applicant. Upon approaching the concerned authorities, he was verbally informed in August 2026 that the report had returned adverse findings on account of his brother's involvement in FIR No. 26/2024 registered at Police Station Pahalgam under Sections 307 IPC, 7/25/27 Arms Act and Sections 13, 16, 18, 18-B, 38 and 39 of the UAPA. Despite repeated requests, the applicant was not furnished a copy of the CID report or the material forming the basis of the adverse findings.

6. Being aggrieved, the applicant submitted representations dated 18.08.2026 and 07.09.2026 to the Additional Director General of Police (ADGP), CID, J&K, seeking reconsideration of the matter. He contended that his service as an SPO had remained unblemished and that his brother resided separately from him. He further highlighted his participation in various counter-terrorism operations, including Operation Sirhama, Operation Hangalgund, Kokernag, Operation Srichan, Pahalgam, and Operation Chanapora, Shopian, besides relying upon the appreciation certificate issued by the SSP, Shopian.

7. The applicant contends that no formal order, reasoned decision, copy of the adverse verification report or particulars of the material relied upon have been supplied to him. He asserts that his suitability and character have apparently been assessed on the basis of his brother's alleged involvement in a criminal case, without disclosing any specific material establishing an adverse inference against his own conduct or antecedents. It is added that the decision has serious civil consequences and is contrary to the applicable Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Verification of Character and Antecedents) Instructions, 1997, the applicant has filed the instant O.A. seeking appropriate reliefs against the adverse verification findings and the consequential impediment to his appointment.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Suhaib F. Bandey, submits that the applicant has a right in law to know as to why he is being deprived of his right to appointment once he has been selected by the competent authority in pursuance to a valid selection process. He submitted that fairness in every action is the hallmark of justice and any action of the respondents depriving the applicant of his right, which has accrued in his favour, has to be justified in law and the same has to be backed by reason which is the heart and soul of every action. In support of his contention the learned counsel has referred to catena of judgments as under:-

(i) Manyata Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh; 2015 (10) SCC 198;

(ii) Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.; 2016 (8) SCC 471; and

(iii) State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramashanar Raghuvanshi & Another; 1983 (2) SCC 145.

(iv) Mohd. Amir Malik v. Union of India & Ors. (WP(C) No. 21/2023)

9. In a democracy we are governed by the Rule of Law and no authority, howsoever higher he may be, cannot be permitted to ignore the constitutional provisions. The fundamental rights, which form bedrock of Rule of Law cannot be permitted to be tampered with in any manner as has been averred by the applicant in the instant O.A. The competent authority is within its powers to act in case there is any cogent reason based on material against the applicant to deprive the applicant of his right for consideration of his appointment but the same has to be in accordance with law and not on any flimsy ground.

10. In this connection, we may refer to the character ‘Jean Valjean’ in Victor Hugo’s novel ‘Les Miserables’, in which for committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his whole life. We may also here refer to the case of Welsh students mentioned by Lord Denning in his book ‘Due Process of Law’, relevant portion of which reads as under – “..............It appears that some students of Wales were very enthusiastic about the Welsh language and they were upset because the radio programmes were being broadcast in the English language and not in Welsh. They came up to London and invaded the High Court. They were found guilty of contempt of Court and sentenced to prison for three months by the High Court Judge. They filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals. Allowing the appeal, Lord Denning observed:- “I come now to Mr. Watkin Powell’s third point. He says that the sentence were excessive. I do not think they were excessive, at the time they were given and in the circumstances then existing. Here was a deliberate interference with the course of justice in a case which was no concern of theirs. It was necessary for the judge to show – and to show to all students everywhere – that this kind of thing cannot be tolerated. Let students demonstrate, if they please, for the causes in which they believe. Let them make their protests as they will. But they must do it by lawful means and not by unlawful. If they strike at the course of justice in this land – and I speaking both for England and Wales – they strike at the roots of society itself, and they bring down that which protects them. It is only by the maintenance of law and order that they are privileged to be students and to study and live in peace. So let them support the law and not strike it down. But now what is to be done? The law has been vindicated by the sentences which the judge passed on Wednesday of law week. He has shown that law and order must be maintained, and will be maintained. But on this appeal, things are changed. These students here no longer defy the law. They have appealed to this Court and shown respect for it. They have already served a week in prison. I do not think it necessary to keep them inside it any longer. These young people are no ordinary criminals. There is no violence, dishonesty or vice in them. On the contrary, there was much that we should applaud. They wish to do all they can to preserve the Welsh language. Well may they be proud of it. It is the language of the bards – of the poets and the singers – more melodious by far than our rough English tongue. On high authority, it should be equal in Wales with English. They have done wrong – very wrong – in going to the extreme they did. But, that having been shown, I think we can, and should, show mercy on them. We should permit them to go back to their studies, to their parents and continue the good course which they have so wrongly disturbed.”

11. Heard.

12. Issue notice upon the respondents. Mr. Rais ud din Ganaie, learned DAG, for respondents no. 1, 3 & 4 and Mr. Syed Musaib, learned DAG, for respondent no. 2, appear and accept notices for the respondents, who are granted four weeks' time to file their response.

13. In our humble estimation, we should display the same wisdom as displayed by Lord Denning. The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life. As such, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, in our opinion, prima facie a case for indulgence is made out. Accordingly, subject to objections of the other side and till the next date of hearing, it is ordered that the post on which the applicant has been selected, though not appointed, in pursuance to Advertisement Notification No. 01 of 2024 dated 16.07.2024, shall not be advertised or filled up by any mode.

14. While parting, we deem it expedient to direct learned cousnel for the applicant herein to please ensure that all like cases are taken up for consideration in accordance with law for which learned counsels will provide all assistance in the matter(s). Registry of this Court shall place details of all such cases before the Hon'ble Member (A), Mr. Prasant Kumar, for further orders upon the Registry.

15. List on 28.12.2026. Prasant Kumar Member (A) M. S. Latif Member (J) Abhishek Punia ( court master )