Does the burden of proving that an appointee lacks the requisite qualification for a public office lie on the writ petitioner until unimpeachable evidence is produced?

Constitution of India — Art.226 — Art.142 — Writ of quo warranto — Locus standi — Burden of proof — Writ of quo warranto — Personal grievance of unsuccessful candidate — Not maintainable — Held: The jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto cannot be employed to vindicate the personal grievance of a candidate unsuccessful in a selection process; the petitioner must show the appointee lacks the qualification to hold the office. (¶9) Writ of quo warranto — Burden of proof — Unimpeachable evidence — Held further: The burden of proving that an appointee lacks the requisite qualification lies on the writ petitioner, who must discharge it with unimpeachable evidence before the onus shifts to the appointer and appointee. (¶14) Constitution of India, Art.142 — Fresh inquiry despite dismissal — Held further: Article 142 empowers the Court to direct a fresh inquiry into an appointee's qualification even while dismissing the appeal and declining relief, where credible evidence of fraud has surfaced during the proceedings. Appeals disposed of. (¶18, 19, 21)