2022 PLP 200 (CLC)

This I.C.A is against order dated 30.03.2017 passed by learned Single Bench. Operative part of the order is hereby reproduced:- "

5. It is clear, therefore, that with regard to each of the petitioners, their marks obtained in the written test as also a comparison with the ones who were appointed, has been made and quite evidently the petitioners do not qualify on the touchstone of merit. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioner No.4 ought to have been appointed in place of respondent No.8 as the said petitioner obtained higher marks. This has further been belied in paragraph 7 of the comments in which it has been mentioned that the respondent No.8 obtained 80 marks and was appointed purely on merits and the marks obtained by the petitioners were far less. In this view, of the matter, there is no doubt that the petitioners did not qualify on merits and it is not open for this Court to substitute its findings for that of the respondent-Corporation which seem to have been validly exercised."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner requests for some time to go through the comments filed by the respondents. Since it is an old matter, therefore, learned counsel is asked to argue the case because the comments are only meant for the court and not for the petitioner as he has to stand on his own legs to prove his case in the Writ Petition and to point out any defect in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Bench.

3. He submits that the decision by the learned Single Bench is not in consonance with record and some admissions on the part of respondents have been overlooked.

4. On merits, he submits that the appointments on contract against the post of Manager, Assistant Manager, Deputy Manager and Executive Officers were made with mala-fide intent and on the basis of recommendations . He has referred to a list of candidates appointed (as attached at page 56 of the Writ Petition) to show that recommendation is noted against every name in one of the columns. Confronted with this, the learned counsel for the respondents has out rightly denied this document. He contends that this document bears no signatures or name of the issuing authority, therefore, does not belong to the respondent Corporation. In addition, he alleges that this is a fabricated document.

5. Learned counsel's next contention is that observation in para-5 regarding test is not in accordance with the record as no such requirement is noted in this publication. He has referred to regularization letter contending that the persons appointed through the process in question have been regularized contending that they do not come up to the qualification as prescribed for the post in question. He is confronted that petitioner's grievance relates to the appointment on contract and not the regularization, upon which, he submits that this is an admission on the part of the respondents Corporation that they are making appointment on the basis of favouritism.

6. Heard, record perused. Without prejudice to the findings by learned Single Bench, the case of the petitioner hinges upon some allegations which can only be resolved through evidence after framing issues. The respondents' side has totally denied the document relied upon by the appellants which can be proved through evidence only by a competent court or forum. The illegalities as pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants in Writ Petition and this appeal are based on some allegations on facts. Suffice it to observe that writ jurisdiction is not meant to determine the disputed facts or to ascertain facts including interpretation of document when respondents side is specifically denying the allegations. Even interpretation of the document under circumstances can only be made by court of plenary jurisdiction.

7. For the reasons noted above, this appeal is dismissed. SA/S-64/L Appeal dismissed.