EWS Reservation Can't Be Claimed By Those Already Holding Reserved Category: J&K HC Cancels MBBS Admission Secured Under Misrepresented EWS Status

Citing Section 2(o) of the J&K Reservation Act along with the amendment effectuated by SRO 518 Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal remarked,

“… a unified interpretation of Section 2(o) of the Reservation Act along with the amendment effectuated by SRO 518 dated 02.09.2019, and the clarification/ office memorandum dated 5.06.2020, indisputably establishes that an individual seeking to claim reservation in the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category must not fall under any of the reserved categories, including Scheduled Tribes (STs), Scheduled Castes (SCs), Reserved Backward Areas (RBA) or any other similar categories”

The court's decision came in response to a case involving the fraudulent acquisition of an EWS certificate by a candidate, Mohd. Umar Farooq, who had already been classified under the RBA category. The court canceled Farooq's MBBS admission, which he had secured using the fraudulent EWS certificate, and directed the Jammu and Kashmir Board of Professional Entrance Examinations (JKBOPEE) to reallocate the seat to the next eligible candidate.

The case revolved around two petitions with one involving Ansh Mahajan who scored 404 marks in the NEET-UG 2024 exam, alleging that Farooq had fraudulently obtained an EWS certificate despite already holding a valid RBA certificate. Mahajan contended that Farooq's admission to the MBBS course under the EWS category was illegal and deprived him of his rightful seat.

Farooq, on the other hand, in another petition, challenged the cancellation of his EWS certificate by the Tehsildar of Ramban, arguing that the cancellation was done without proper application of mind and that he had fulfilled all the necessary criteria for the EWS certificate.

While adjudicating the matter the court formulated several key questions to address the issues raised in the petitions.

Answering the question as to whether an individual holding an RBA reservation certificate, without surrendering it, is eligible for an EWS certificate the court observed that SRO 518 explicitly prohibits individuals already benefiting from any other reservation category (such as ST, SC, or RBA) from obtaining an EWS certificate. The court clarified that individuals covered under existing reservation schemes are not entitled EWS benefits and concluded that Farooq, who held a valid RBA certificate, was ineligible for an EWS certificate.

Determining the culpability on part of Umar Farooq as to whether the EWS certificate was secured through fraudulent means, including concealment and misrepresentation of facts the court found that Farooq had concealed his RBA status and misrepresented his residential status while applying for the EWS certificate.

“The perusal of the record and consideration of the arguments put forth by the counsel for the parties thus, make it abundantly clear that the category certificate was obtained fraudulently by concealment and misrepresenting the material facts”, the court recorded.

Deliberating on the powers of the issuing authority to revoke/withdraw the said certificate so issued the court held that the Tehsildar, who issued the EWS certificate, also had the authority to cancel it if it was found to be obtained through fraudulent means. The court cited several judgments, including Gurusiddayya v. The Tahsildar and Arshad Jamil v. Uttarakhand, which upheld the authority of the issuing officer to cancel certificates obtained through misrepresentation or fraud.

“Therefore, the petitioner's procurement of the EWS certificate was not merely an administrative lapse but a deliberate act of fraud, warranting appropriate legal consequences, including the revocation of the certificate and any other action deemed necessary under the law”, underscored Justice Nargal.

Expounding on the aspect as to whether the instant case constitutes an exceptional case in which alternate and efficacious remedy available to the parties can be bypassed, considering the circumstances and legal principles involved Justice Nargal ruled that the case was exceptional due to its time-sensitive nature and the direct impact on the careers of the students involved. The court exercised its discretion to adjudicate the matter directly, rather than remitting it to the Deputy Commissioner for appeal.

Concluding that Farooq's admission to the MBBS course was procured through fraudulent means and was therefore void ab initio the court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Dattatray, which held that any benefit obtained through fraudulent means, including admission to educational institutions, is liable to be canceled.

He added,

“The petitioner has unlawfully usurped an MBBS seat reserved under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category, which was specifically intended for a deserving and eligible candidate meeting the EWS criteria. By securing admission through illegitimate means, the petitioner has not only deprived a rightful candidate of their opportunity but has also acted in bad faith, thereby violating the principles of fairness and justice”.

Upholding the cancellation of Farooq's EWS certificate and his subsequent admission to the MBBS course the court directed JKBOPEE to reallocate the vacant seat to the next eligible candidate in the merit list, Basit Ahmad Bhat. If Bhat declines the offer, the seat will be offered to Ansh Mahajan, the next candidate in line, the court concluded. 

Case Title: Ansh Mahajan Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment