WP(C) 4703/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI Heard Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. BJ Ghosh, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.4. From the affidavit-in-opposition, filed by the State respondents, it transpires that according to the State respondents, the State Government, vide its letter, dated 25.04.2008, approved filling up of some vacant posts in the Department of Legal Metrology and accordingly, one post of Lower Division Assistant-cum-Typist was proposed to be filled up in the office of the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Hailakandi, and in tune with the Notification of Vacancy Act, 1959, District Em ployment Exchange, Hailakandi, was informed by the respondent concerned to forwa rd the names of the candidates for selection and appointment to the lone post of Lower Division Assistant-cum-Typist and the said vacancy was also notified at t he notice Board of the office of the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Hailakandi, but neither District Employment Exchange, Hailakandi, included the name of the p resent petitioner in the list of twenty numbers of candidates, which was forward ed by the District Employment Exchange, nor did the petitioner make any applicat ion responding to the notified vacancy as mentioned hereinbefore and it is for t his reason that the petitioner could not be considered for appointment. To the a verments so made, there is no denial by the petitioner. The question as to whether any notice of vacancy was published at the establishm ent of the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Hailakandi, is a disputed question of f act and such a disputed question of fact cannot be properly decided in a writ pr oceeding of the present nature inasmuch as determination of such a question of f act would require taking of evidence, which would not be appropriate in the pre sent case. In view of the above, this writ petition is not admitted and the same shall acco rdingly stand dismissed. The petitioner shall, however, remain at liberty to take recourse to appropriate provisions of law for remedy of his grievances.