Subrata Kumar Banerjee. Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.

.....it was, accordingly, submitted that respondent no.1 was ineligible for appointment to the post of assistant registrar. the division bench found and held that respondent no.1 was not eligible to be considered for the post of deputy registrar and, hence, rejected his case in so far that post is concerned. coming, however, to the post of assistant registrar, the division bench took the view that selection committee had not assigned any reason for putting respondent nos. 4 and 5 above respondent no.1 in the select list. no material has been produced before us to show that it is the selection committee which upon assessment of merit of the appellant and respondent nos. 4 and 5, found appellant was less meritorious than the respondent nos. 4 and 5. in the first place the division bench overlooked that according to the statutory eligibility criterion only a section officer or a p.a.-cum-stenographer was eligible to be considered for appointment as assistant registrar and respondent no.1 was a head assistant. the division bench seems to have overlooked that while respondent nos. 4 and 5 were at ranks iv and v in the select list, respondent no.1 was at rank xiii and by brining him at par with respondent nos. 4 and 5, the division bench clearly ignored the claims of the seven candidates who figured in between from rank vi to xii and who were above respondent no.1......counsel submits that since the petitioner called upon the respondents to supply necessary information and the respondents have failed and neglected to supply the information, the petitioner is entitled to approach the high court the under art.226 seeking a mandamus quashing the measures taken by the respondents. 4. the petitioner requested the respondents to supply the information by making a representation. that was not an application under the right to information act, 2005. there is nothing acceptable to show that the respondents took any measure for enlistment of contractors in violation of any law. the petitioner is seeking a mandamus quashing certain measures. unless evidence is produced to show what measures, if any, have been taken, in my opinion, the petitioner cannot seek a mandamus quashing the unknown measures. it was for him to collect the necessary evidence and produce them with the petition. it is not for the high court to collect the evidence by making an enquiry. 5. in my opinion, on the basis of a bald case stated without any supporting evidence, the petition cannot be entertained for examining whether the measures, if any, taken by the respondents should be quashed. a bald claim or assertion made in an art.226 petition does not make out a prima facie case, for evidence in proof of a claim or assertion has to be produced with the petition itself and the prima facie case has to be ascertained considering the claim or assertion and the evidence together. 6. for these reasons, i dismiss the petition making it clear that nothing herein shall prevent the petitioner from collecting the evidence and filing a fresh case questioning the measures, if any, taken by the respondents with the supporting evidence. no costs. certified xerox.