Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
(ORAL)
1. Jai Prakash has preferred this special appeal challenging order dated 22.5.2007 rendered in Writ Petition No.5579 9SS) of 1994 titled 'Jai Praksh vs. Chairman, Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others.
Vide the impugned order the writ petition has been dismissed taking into account the fact that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he had been appointed in the pay scale permissible to a clerk w.e.f. 3.7.1991.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has not appeared to prosecute the appeal. The case relates to the year 2007. 12 years have gone by. We find no justifiable reason to adjourn the case to await appearance of the counsel.
3. Shri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi Advocate appearing for the respondents and with his assistance we have gone through the contents of the impugned order.
4. Before proceeding further, this Court is required to consider as to what is a writ petition.
A civil writ petition is a suit which is required to be supplemented with the evidence on which the petitioner chooses to rely, in view of its nature. Not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and documents annexed in case of a writ petition. When a writ petitioner raises a point of law which is required to be substantiated by facts, he must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and accompanying documents.
If he is a respondent, the facts asserted are required to be proved from the written statement/ counter affidavit and supporting documents. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the written statement/ counter affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point.
Pleadings include documents placed on record as annexures. When a document is placed on record along with a writ petition, it is explained in the body of the writ petition in regard to its relevance and as to why the said document has been placed on record and what ground of challenge emerges therefrom. The respondent thereby is given an opportunity to respond to the pleadings in the writ petition and appended annexures, so as to clarify his stand and point of view.
5. We have also referred to the pleadings in the special appeal, and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents/writ respondents. Even along with the appeal/application for interim relief, only letter of appointment dated 17.10.1986 on the post of ?Messenger? has been appended. There is no document placed on record that would demonstrate that the appellant/writ petitioner was either appointed on the post of clerk, or was promoted on the said post.
Per contra in the counter affidavit the factual situation has been explained. It has been elaborated that promotion from the post of Messenger to the post of Clerk is possible only under the rules and policy framed by the bank under guidance of the Central Government. Such promotion cannot be merely on the basis of qualification. The appellant was allowed to appear in the examination conducted for promotion from the post of Messenger to Clerk held on 3.7.2011. In the examination however, the appellant/writ petitioner was unsuccessful. Copy of the list of successful candidates has been appended with the counter affidavit to the appeal as Annexure CA-3. In view of the said irrefutable evidence it has been pleaded on behalf of the respondents that appellant was not found suitable for promotion to the post of Clerk in the bank. Thus the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner to the post and/or salary permissible to a clerk is without any factual basis.
The plea in the counter affidavit has not been countered by rejoinder affidavit.
6. The writ court has dismissed the petition because the appellant writ petitioner did not file any document that would establish that he was appointed on the post of clerk. We find that in such circumstances the writ court acted judicially and legally in dismissing the writ petition. We find no ground to interfere in special appeal jurisdiction.
7. Dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.8.2019 Madhu