IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3347 of 2011 1. Bambam Nayak, S/o Sukhdeo Yadav, R/O Vill. + P.O.- Chand Pipar, Via Bhaptiyahi Bazar, P.S.- Kisanpur, Distt.- Supaul Versus 1. The Union Of India Through The Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna 2. The Post Master General, Northern Region, Muzaffarpur 3. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Head Office, Saharsa 4. The Additional Superintendent of Post Offices, Supaul Sub- Division, Supaul. 5. Shri Akhilesh Kumar Yadav @ Chandra Kishore Yadav, S/O Upendra Prasad Yadav, R/O Village- Chikni, P.O.- Saraigarh, Via, Bhaptiyahi, District- Supaul ………….. Respondents. ----------- 3. 18.10.2011 The dispute relates to appointment to the post of GDSMD/MC in Saraigarh Branch Office in account with Bhaptiyahi Bazar, Supaul. The private respondent Akhilesh Kumar Yadav whom the petitioner wants to be known as Chandra Kishore Yadav has been appointed to the said post on account of having better marks in the Matriculation Examination. The challenge to the appointment of Akhilesh Kumar Yadav could not succeed before the Tribunal and O.A.No. 567 of 2008 has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 28th December 2010 because there was no satisfactory and good material to accept the case of the petitioner that Akhilesh Kumar Yadav had changed his name from that of Chandra Kishore Yadav and had taken 2 the Matriculation Examination again to secure better marks. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner is strongly disputed and it will not be possible for this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction to come to a finding to help the petitioner with his case that Akhilesh Kumar Yadav had illegally taken the Matriculation Examination for the 2nd time after changing his original name, Chandra Kishore Yadav. If the petitioner had any established right, we could have helped him but in exercise of writ jurisdiction, it is not possible to help him in establishing his right which involves disputed question of fact. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is so advised and is ready to obtain the declaration of correct facts from a competent court, he will be at liberty to do so. Jay/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)