. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1377 of 2001 NARAYAN SHARMA Versus KAMESHWAR SINGH DARBHANGA SANS ----------- 10 9.4.2009 Heard learned Counsels for the petitioner, for the Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University and also for the Governing Body of Nityanand Sanskrit College, Amarut, Gaya. Advertisement no. 1172 of 1989 was issued by the erstwhile Bihar College Service Commission inviting applications for one post of Lecturer in the faculty of “Grammar.” It is the case of the petitioner that after selection his name was recommended by the Commission despite which appointment has not been made. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Governing Body of the College. It encloses necessary documents in support of the pleadings. The recommendation sent by the Commission with regard to the petitioner, was in context of advertisement no. 1172 of 1999. It was for the second post of Lecturer in “Grammar.” It has been noticed above that the advertisement no. 1172 of 1989 was for a solitary post of Lecturer in „Grammar‟. 2 The next submission of the petitioner is that he submitted his application within the extended time. That the respondents lost his application. The stand of the respondent is that the petitioner never submitted his application in time. In fact he applied on 29.6.1999 and prior to the same interview letter was issued to him 22.5.1999 and interview held on 25.5.1999. Reliance is placed on the application of the petitioner at Annexure R/2 to the counter affidavit of the College, submitted before the Commission, which does not mention that it is a duplicate application. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on Annexure 7 to the reply to the counter affidavit has placed on record the acknowledgment granted to him with regard to submission of his application in response to advertisement no.1172 of 1989 within the extended time on 16.11.1993. The writ application is raising serious issues of disputed facts. If advertisement No. 1172 of 1989 was for a solitary post of Lecturer in „Grammar‟ under what circumstances recommendation was made for a second post in context of advertisement No. 1172 of 1999. Had the petitioner submitted his application within time? If that be so, was it misplaced and a duplicate application form submitted ? 3 In view of the serious disputed issues of facts involved requiring enquiry, the petitioner, if so advised, may file a representation before Respondent no.2 enclosing all necessary documents on which he proposes to rely alongwith a copy of the present order. If such a detailed representation with documentary evidence, is filed by the petitioner within a maximum period of eight weeks, this Court expects that respondent no.2 shall consider the representation and dispose the same by reasoned and speaking order. The Court is satisfied that such an enquiry on facts is not possible in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Application stands disposed. A.Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)