Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

After a bare reading of the order passed by the learned single Judge pursuant to which the order impugned in the writ petition was passed it cannot also virtually be said that the document relied on by the petitioner had been accepted by the respondents. It was the specific submission of the petitioner before the learned single Judge that since the representation regarding the selection of the private respondent had been filed before the respondent no. 6, appropriate direction might be issued for consideration of the same. And in view of such submission the learned single Judge sent the matter back to the respondent no. 6. Neither the parties had any occasion to deliberate on the issue nor did the learned Judge had any occasion to address himself to the score-sheet appended. After all, the writ petition had not been decided on affidavits. The learned single Judge had specifically observed that he had not entered into the merits of the matter and all points had been kept open. Over and above everything, the learned single Judge had directed the respondent no. 6 to verify the records and pass the order after ascertaining the correctness of the things as stated in page 24 of the writ petition and after making necessary enquiry. Page 24 of the writ petition was a part of Annexure P-3 and that was the unsigned document by which the petitioner had been declared as the first candidate. The veracity of the said document was not unquestioned and the learned single Judge was not apparently satisfied with the same. Therefore, he left the matter to the respondent no. 6 to ascertain the correctness of the said document and the respondent no. 6 in the present case has exactly done so. I fail to understand how the question of even estoppel does arise. Apart from the fact that the respondents did not get any opportunity to file any affidavit, the learned Judge himself was questioning the validity of the document and that is how he sent the matter back.