Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act stipulates that the burden of proof would be on the person who has special knowledge of relevant facts.
It is now trite that by reason of doctrine of non-traverse, allegations which are not denied, would be deemed to be admitted. It is further trite that the burden of proof to prove a negative would be shifted to a person who had the requisite knowledge of the fact. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act stipulates that the burden of proof would be on the person who has special knowledge of relevant facts. It was, thus, for the unofficial respondents to show that they were local-candidates within the meaning of Para 7 of the Recruitment Order quoted above as they are in possession of their educational certificates or any other certificates relevant for the purpose of Para 7 of the Presidential Order and this, in my view, clinches the basic issue involved in the writ petition. Documents such as study certificates issued by the educational institutions where they have studied in the local area and certificates evidencing their educational qualifications etc., are the crucial documents relevant for the purpose of determining the 'local' or 'non-local' nature of a candidate as required under Para 7 of the Recruitment Order. Neither the 1st respondent nor the respondents 2 to 5 have filed such documents before the Court. When allegations are made challenging the very validity of the appointment of respondents 2 to 5 on the ground that they are non-locals, the burden lies on them to dispel the same and prove that they are locals within the meaning of Para 7 of the Recruitment Order. Further, they have not even furnished their permanent residential addresses in their applicationsand they had merely furnished their care of addresses in Nellore District,
Andhra High Court
V. Venkata Subrahmanyam vs District And Sessions Judge, ... on 20 July, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001 (5) ALT 403
