Srinagar, Sep 30: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has allowed its orderlies’ regularisation to continue, holding that denial of security clearance based solely on the alleged antecedents of his brother could not constitute sufficient ground to revoke his appointment.
An order from the administrative side in this regard was approved by the Chief Justice, following which the Registrar General, M K Sharma, ordered that Firdous Ahmad Sheikh’s regularisation as Orderly, effected through the July 4, 2024 order, shall continue.
Sheikh, a resident of Khrew, Pampore, had initially been engaged as a daily-rated worker in the High Court Wing, Srinagar, in April 2010. His services were regularised as an orderly in July 2024 under the High Court’s Regularization of Services of Daily Wagers Regulations, 2022, subject to verification of his documents and character antecedents.
However, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), J&K, denied security clearance to Sheikh in a report dated January 30, 2026, citing the alleged adverse antecedents of his brother, Abdul Qayoom Sheikh.
The matter was subsequently considered by the High Court Committee for Appointment and Promotion of Officials/Officers of the High Court Staff on September 7, 2026.
The Committee held that Sheikh’s testimonials had been duly verified and found genuine and that there was no adverse material concerning his own conduct, integrity, character or antecedents. The panel also noted that he had continuously served the High Court since 2010 and that no vigilance inquiry or complaint was pending against him.
Referring to the High Court’s judgment in Mohd Amir Malik v. Union of India and others, the Committee observed that a person cannot be deprived of legal or service rights solely on account of the conduct or antecedents of a relative, unless there is substantive material directly connecting the individual with such activities.
Moreover, the Committee noted Sheikh’s assertion that he had been living separately from his brother for several years and had no involvement in his activities, saying that no material had been placed on record to rebut the claim.
The Committee, accordingly, recommended that the denial of security clearance, insofar as it was based solely on the antecedents of his brother, should not be acted upon for revoking Sheikh’s regularisation.
About The Author
