IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.22838 of 2011 Date of decision : 9.12.2011 Nitin Bhardwaj ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Munish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner, who participated in a selection process for recruitment as a Constable has been denied the appointment on the ground that the certificate which he initially submitted in support of his educational qualification reveals the name of his father as Krishan Bhardwaj. However, in the certificate supplied in support of his caste/residential proof the name of his father was mentioned as Krishan Datt. Due to this disparity in the name of father of the petitioner the appointment was not offered to him. It is the case of the petitioner that he had cleared all the hurdles leading to selection successfully and merely because his father's name is different in the certificates it should not have been a ground to deny him the appointment and even if such an action is to be resorted to, he should have been intimated accordingly. C.W.P.No.22838 of 2011 -2- On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the respondents by virtue of letter Annexure P-8 have disclosed the reason to the petitioner for not considering him for appointment. This Court in exercise of powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India cannot embark upon an inquiry which is to be determined on the facts of the case as to which is proper parentage of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner regarding non- disclosure of this fact has also been rendered illusory in view of Annexure P-8 when the real cause has been disclosed to him. It is for him to go and establish before the competent authority that the parentage of the petitioner as described in various certificates is one and the same and there is no dispute about his identity. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to pursue his remedy with the respondents who may consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in the eventuality of his successfully showing to them that Krishan Bhardwaj and Krishan Datt are one and the same person. 9.12.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss