WP(C) 5680/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR B.K. SHARMA JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. D.C. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as we ll as Mr. B.K. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department. 2. As recorded in the earlier proceedings, the claim of the petitioner is t hat he has been superseded in the matter of appointment to the post of Statistic al Assistant, inasmuch as, the official respondents have appointed the responden t No.6, who secured only 48 marks as against 64 marks secured by the petitioner. In this connection, the petitioner has placed reliance on the Annexure-4 docume nt. On the other hand, the respondents have questioned the very existence of the Annexure-4 document. In fact, in their written statement dated 19.9.2011, it ha s been stated that the petitioner should be asked to produce the original of the said document, more particularly, when the same is annexed to the writ petition , certifying the same to be true copy of the original document. 3. By order dated 26.9.2011, the petitioner was directed to produce the ori ginal of Annexure-4 document. Instead of producing the original, he has filed an affidavit dated 18.11.2011 stating that although he had approached the jurisdic tional CDPO asking for the original of the Annexure-4 document but instead of pr oviding the same to him, it was stated that all the records had been sent to Dir ectorate of Social Welfare Department, Assam. In paragraph 3 of the said affidav it, it has been stated that one of the members of the Selection Board, namely, S hri B.C. Nath, ADC, Cachar, who has since retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, has already confirmed the authenticity of the Annexure-4 documents. 4. The above explanation furnished by the petitioner in the form of an affi davit dated 18.11.2011, is not in conformity of what was required to obtain in t erms of the aforesaid order dated 26.9.2011, by which the petitioner was directe d to produce the original of Annexure-4 document, more particularly, when the sa me has been annexed to the writ petition certifying it to be true copy of the or iginal. 5. It is the definite case of the respondents that the petitioner could not be selected and / or appointed in view of the lesser mark secured by him than t hat of the respondents No. 5 & 6. 6. The petitioner having asserted a particular stand in the writ petitioner , it is up to him to establish the same and cannot develop and / or deviate the said stand by filling further affidavit. As stated above, the photocopy of the Annexure-4 document having been certified to be true copy of the original, it wa s incumbent on the part of the petitioner to produce the same, more particularly , when the respondents have denied the existence of the same. It is not for the writ Court to make a roving enquiry. 7. As regards the plea of non-application of the reservation roster, in abs ence of any material particulars, more particularly, the disclosure of the total cadre strength, such plea is also not acceptable. 8. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and acc ordingly the writ petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own c osts.