ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the grievance of the petitioner became manifest when he got the information from the respondents under the Right to Information Act in the year 2010, according to which respondent No.4 was appointed as Guest Lecturer over and above the petitioner even though the petitioner was more qualified and deserving. It is stated that the petitioner had submitted an application (Annexure P-1) which was deliberately not considered and now the stand of the official respondents is that the application was never received. He stated that an FIR has been registered against the erring persons who maliciously withheld the application made by the petitioner.

(2.) On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that whether the application was received or not by the official respondents is a disputed question of fact which cannot be determined in view of the assertions and counter-assertions made by the respective parties.

(3.) At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he be permitted to withdraw the instant petition with liberty to file a civil suit to determine the said fact as also to seek appropriate damages against the respondents on account of their unjust action in depriving the petitioner of the employment which he deserved.