Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Zarina vs Union Territory Of J And K And Others on 31 July, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
Serial No. 95
Supple Cause List.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
*******
WP (C ) No. 1836/2026
CM No. 4955/2026.
ZARINA
...Petitioner (s)
Through: Mr. Ishtiyaq Ahmad Mir, Advocate.
VERSUS
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS.
...Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE.
ORDER
31-07-2026
01. The petitioner has challenged Order dated 29 th of July 2026, passed
by Respondent No.3 – Zonal Education Officer, Hajin, whereby her engagement
as Aaya in a Middle School at Khumina, was terminated on the ground that the
signature and seal appearing on the school leaving certificate produced by her do
not tally with the signature and seal available in the records of the Zonal Education
Office, Rainawari.
02. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the
case.
03. It appears that the petitioner was engaged as Aaya vide engagement
order dated 25th of October 2024, subject to certain conditions. One of the
conditions, which is relevant to the present context, is reproduced as under:-
“In case it comes to the fact that the Documents/certificates
submitted by the concerned Helper/Aaya are fake/forged,, the
1|Page
engagement in that case shall be deemed to have been terminated ad-
initio and the candidate shall be liable for penal action. Further the
engagement shall be subject to the authenticity/genuineness of the
domicile/Widow/Divorced/Orphan/Destitute and other documents
submitted by the candidate at the time of submission of application”.
04. From a perusal of the aforesaid condition, it is clear that in case the
documents/certificates submitted by the engagee are found to be fake/ forged, the
engagement shall be deemed to have been terminated ab-initio and the candidate
shall be liable to penal consequences. It has been further clarified in the said
condition that the engagement shall be subject to the authenticity /genuineness of
the Domicile Certificate and other documents submitted by the candidate at the
time of submission of the application.
05. In the instant case, when the school leaving certificate of the
petitioner was got verified from the concerned school, it was reported by the Zonal
Education Officer, Rainawari that upon examination of the certificate of the
petitioner with the records maintained in the office, particularly the drawer
register of the zone, it was found that the signatures and seal reflected on the
school leaving certificate did not coincide with the records of the Zonal Education
Office, Rainawari. This clearly indicates that the signature and seal appearing on
the certificate produced by the petitioner before the respondents was forged.
06. The petitioner, as already stated, had accepted her engagement with
all the conditions contained in the engagement Order dated 25th of October 2024.
Therefore, once her school leaving certificate was found to be not genuine, the
consequence had to follow.
07. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
respondents were obliged to issue a prior notice to the petitioner before passing
the impugned order. In this regard, it is to be noted that the petitioner was not
2|Page
holding civil post so as to attract the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution
of India. There was, therefore, no need to hold any enquiry against her. Even
otherwise, her engagement was subject to the condition that the certificates
submitted by her were found to be genuine. Having accepted the said condition at
the time of her engagement, she cannot now be heard to contend that she should
have been afforded an opportunity of hearing before termination of her
engagement.
08. Apart from the above, offering an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner would be an empty formality as she cannot improve upon what has been
reported by the ZEO. It is not even the case of the petitioner, that she is in
possession of a genuine school leaving certificate or that the report of the ZEO is
not genuine. In these circumstances, affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner would have been an idle formality.
09. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in Writ petition. The
same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
SRINAGAR
31-07-2026
Showkat Khan
3|Page
