Around 40 Percent 'EWS' Applications Rejected in Tehsil Kathua During Last 5 Years

Jammu, 04/09/2026:  Nearly 40 percent of the applications for Economically Weaker Section (EWS) certificates filed in Tehsil Kathua over the last five years have been rejected.

In response to an online RTI application filed by Jammu-based RTI activist Raman Kumar Sharma, the Office of the Tehsildar (PIO), Kathua, vide reply No. 55/RTI/BCG dated 25-08-2026, informed that a total of 6,963  applications for issuance of EWS were received between 2022 and 2027, out of which 4,276 certificates were issued, while 2,687 applications, close to 40 percent, were rejected.

Year-wise, data show a steady rise in both applications and rejections. During financial year 2022-23, out of 480 EWS applications, 282 certificates were issued and 198 rejected. The numbers jumped sharply in FY 2023-24, with 1,566 applications, 1,144 certificates issued and 422 rejected. In  Financial year 2024 25,  out of 2,461 applications 1,372 certificates were issued and 1,089 applications rejected. The following year, 2025-26, saw 2,205 applications, with 1,325 issued and 880 rejected. For 2026-27, till date, 251 applications have been received, 153 certificates issued and 98 rejected.

The  reply of the Tehsil office however did not provide data for the years FY 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, stating that EWS certificates during this period were issued offline, and asked  the applicant to approach the office separately for that record.  

Commenting on the rejection figures, RTI activist Raman Kumar Sharma said that a rejection rate of nearly 40 percent EWS application was not normal and warranted an audit. He called for a white paper to examine the reasons behind the rejections.   “Either residents are not adequately aware of the eligibility requirements for obtaining EWS certificates, or there is some other issue that can come to the fore only after a proper audit or probe,” he said.

The figures, he added, should be examined to determine whether applicants were being rejected due to incomplete documentation, ineligibility or other reasons, and whether adequate opportunities were being provided to rectify deficiencies.

.

.