Muzaffar Ahmad Khan vs State and Others

For ""sins of father"" petitioner should not suffer.

Father of the petitioner was serving in Police Department. As per the petitioner he sought premature retirement as he was having throat cancer.

He died on 16.1.1991. Petitioner submits he came to be appointed as Assistant SubInspector in the Police Department in relaxation of the Rules.

This appointment as per the petitioner was made keeping in view the service rendered by his father. Government Order No. 409(P) of 1991 came

to be issued on 16.8.1991. Petitioner submits he submitted his joining report on 7.8.1992. He was however, not allowed to join. He was also not

sent for training. It is submitted that almost for three years he waited for joining Government Service in the Police Department. Having failed to get

any response he has approached this court.

Stand taken by the respondents is that letter of appointment did come to be issued in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter antecedents of the

petitioner were got verified from the Police Department. Police report was not favourable. As to what is adverse against the petitioner has not

introduced. All that has been said is that criminal investigation department after verification expressed an opinion that the character and antecedents

are not good.

Objections were preferred in this court on 3.5.1995. Thereafter counter has also been filed. Further fact is that verification report has been

made available. This is dated 24.12.1991. For facility of reference this is being reproduced below :

Enquiries conducted into the matter have revealed that Muzaffar Ahmad Khan S/o Late Munshi Khan is serving as a teacher in Education

Department and has applied for recruitment as ASI in Police Department. It is further reported that one Mohd. Ishtiaq Ahmed S/o Mohd. Ayoob

R/o Dhargiloon (a trained militant took shelter with Munshi Khan) father of the subject when he was posted at Srinagar. The subject also knew this

fact and did not inform any agency/ police about the binding of Ishtiaq Ahmed who was putting up with his father at Srinagar. Moreover, as per the

record check of the CID Hqrs. the individual is known on our records. He being a supporter of JKLF is a history sheeter on the records of CID.

His brother who is a Pak trained militant was also arrested. The subject was also arrested by the police in 1970 and was later released after same

day"".

A perusal of the above would indicate :

i) That the petitioner is serving as teacher in Education Department.

ii) That one Ishtiaq Ahmed took shelter with the father of the petitioner when he was posted at Srinagar. This fact as per the respondents was not

brought to the notice of the authorities and it is stated that petitioner should have done so.

iii) That the brother of the petitioner is also Pakistan trained militant.

iv) That the petitioner was arrested but was released on the same day.

I am of the opinion that the report dated 24.12 1991 is more against the father and brother of the petitioner. Nothing has been brought out

against him. He is serving in Education Department. Therefore, to say that he is not fit to render service with the State Government is an argument

which cannot be accepted. For the ""sins of father"" son is not to be punished. Therefore, this petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to

reconsider the entire matter. If there is something specific against the petitioner only that would be taken into consideration for debaring him from

reaping the benefit of letter of appointment issued in his favour. Let a decision be taken and conveyed to the petitioner within a period of two

months from the date copy of order passed by this court is made available by the petitioner to the respondents and also their counsel. Disposed of

accordingly.