ANIL KUMAR JHA Vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE circumstances as surround the record between the Letters Patent Appeal No. 446/99 (Anil Kumar Jha and others vs. Subhash Chandra Jha and others), resting on the record of C.W.J.C. No. 793/98 (Subhash Chandra vs. Kamesh -war Singh Sanskrit University, Darbhanga and others), present unfortunate circumstances for a superior court of record in its prerogative writ jurisdiction. No one can deny that it is settled principle that the writ jurisdiction of a High Court, examines issues only on affidavits. Thus, there is a heavy obligation and a solemn one, that what is stated before the High Court be the truth and nothing but the truth, and if any aspect refers to the record then the copy of the record be placed faithfully. Filing an affidavit is only a matter of convenience before the writ court in theory. When a writ of certiorari issues to whomsoever he may be, the record normally ought to be coming before the High Court. It is only to eliminate the record before a court of record that the party to whom the writ issues as an indulgence is permitted to plead the state of the record on an affidavit.

(2.) SUBHASH Chandra Jha filed a petition before the High Court claiming reliefs that 27 persons having been given out of turn promotion and regularised as class -ill employees, they ought not to have been regularised as class -ill employees. Consequently, the petitioner claimed that he was entitled to be promoted on a class -ill post as a Routine Clerk and/or Assistant at the University. The petitioner was working in the position of Adesh Pal, in other words, a peon. Whatever his claim to promotion may have been, time bound or otherwise, what is relevant is the defence of the University on the petitioner.

(3.) THE counter -affidavit had been sworn by one Sripati Tripathi, describing himself in the position as ''Reader -cum -Law Officer (Legal), Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University and, as such, he was well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case ''. In paragraph 2 of the counter - affidavit, he asserted that he was ''authorised by the Vice Chancellor to swear the counter -affidavit. ''