The committee said CID’s denial of security clearance was not based on any adverse material concerning his conduct, integrity, character or antecedents but stemmed exclusively from ‘the alleged antecedents of his brother and the perceived possibility of a security risk arising therefrom’

SRINAGAR: A Jammu and Kashmir high court (HC) panel Tuesday rejected a CID report against an HC staffer, observing that an employee cannot be denied security clearance solely because of his brother’s alleged antecedents.HC engaged Pampore resident Firdous Ahmad Sheikh as a daily-rated worker on April 1, 2010, and posted him at its Srinagar wing. On July 4, 2024, HC regularised his services as an orderly under the Regularization of Services of Daily Wagers in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Regulations, 2022.Like other appointments, Firdous’s regularisation was subject to CID verification, as is required for govt employment in J&K. On Jan 1, 2026, CID denied him security clearance, citing the “heightened adversity of his brother, Abdul Qayoom Sheikh”.The matter was placed before the Chief Justice, who referred it to the Committee for Appointment and Promotion of Officials, Officers of the High Court Staff, for consideration.

The committee verified Firdous’s testimonials and found them genuine. It said CID’s denial of security clearance was not based on any adverse material concerning his conduct, integrity, character or antecedents but stemmed exclusively from “the alleged antecedents of his brother and the perceived possibility of a security risk arising therefrom”.The panel said Firdous had served the HC since 2010, and nothing adverse had been reported about his conduct, integrity or performance. “On the contrary, the record reflects that his work and conduct have remained satisfactory and that no vigilance enquiry or complaint is pending against him,” it said.Quoting J&K HC’s Feb 11, 2025 judgment in the Mohd Amir Malik v. Union of India and others case—which held that a person cannot be deprived of his legal or service rights solely on account of the conduct or antecedents of his relatives—the panel noted that liability cannot be fastened upon an individual merely on account of the alleged acts or antecedents of a close relative in the absence of any cogent material establishing the individual’s own involvement, association, complicity or misconduct.