Man Singh vs Dr. Y.S. Parmar University

Deepak Gupta, J.—By means of this petition, the Petitioner has prayed that the Respondent University be directed to grant him employment under the kith and kin policy.

The undisputed facts of the case are that the wife of the Petitioner was working with the Respondent University. She expired and thereafter the Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment.

The main objection of the University to the Petitioner being granted compassionate appointment is that he is not an Indian citizen and belongs to Nepal. The Petitioner in support of his case has produced a birth certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Oachghat, Tehsil Solan in which it is mentioned that Man Singh was born at village Nandal in District Solan on 1.8.1957. The University has disputed the correctness of this certificate and along with the reply has filed certain documents. Some of these documents are the attendance registers of the period prior to the death of the wife when the Petitioner himself was appointed on daily-wages and in all these attendance registers he has been shown to be resident of village Hitan, Tehsil and P.O. Jagarkot, Nepal.

The case of the University also is that the Petitioner has managed a false birth certificate only on the basis of the affidavits filed by him. The Gram Panchayat Oachghat has clarified that it has no record with regard to the birth of Man Singh at village Nandal and the birth certificate has been issued only on the basis of the affidavits filed by the Petitioner. There are two affidavits filed by Man Singh. In the first affidavit he states that his date of birth is 1st July, 1957 and in the second affidavit he states that he is residing at village Nandal for the last 20 years. These affidavits were filed on 7th August, 2000 and in the affidavits the age of the Petitioner is shown to be 43 years. Therefore, at best these affidavits show that the Petitioner has been residing at village Nandal since 1980, when he was 23 years old. There is no affidavit that the Petitioner was born at Nandal. As such the Petitioner has failed to place on record any evidence to show that he was born in India.

In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition which is dismissed. No order as to costs.