B.S. Chauhan, J.
1. Instant writ petition has been filed for seeking direction to respondents to grant selection grade to the petitioner with effect from 1.8.1991 and further consequential benefits.
2. Petitioner claims that he was appointed on temporary basis as ‘Borer’ in the grade Rs. 75-160 with the respondent on 1.8.1964 and he was promoted as Blaster vide order dated 10th August, 1966. He was again promoted as Blasting Supervisor with effect from 1st November, 1977. Petitioner claims that he has been denied benefits of selection grade after completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service.
3. Respondents have filed reply that as petitioner has been granted promotion in 1966, he can not claim benefit of first selection grade and, he had been given benefit of selection grade after completing 18 and 27 years of service respectively.
4. The services of the petitioner is governed by the Rajasthan Ground Water Subordinate Service Rules, 1973 and, to understand the matter further, it was asked repeatedly to learned Counsel for parties as what were provisions/Rules under which petitioner had been appointed in 1964 and the provisions of law under which he had been promoted vide order dated 10th August, 1966. It was necessary to find out for determining the actual controversy. More so, order of appointment/promotion of the petitioner has not been placed on record.
5. There is nothing on record to show as what was nature of initial appointment of the petitioner and if the petitioner had been appointed only on 31st July, 1964, under what provisions of law he had been promoted on a higher post vide order dated 10th August, 1966 i.e. within period of 2 years. In order to determine whether said promotion of the petitioner on the higher post within period of 2 years was permissible in law or not and, if his promotion was regular and strictly in accordance with law, whether he was not entitled to get his first selection grade; it is necessary to find out as what was the law under which petitioner had been appointed in 1964 and further promoted in 1966.
6. Shri Himanshu Maheshwari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, repeatedly answered every question that it was not necessary to find out. He was neither in a position to answer as under what law petitioner had been appointed nor he was in a position to reply as what was law under which he had been promoted, nor learned Counsel for parties were able to say whether promotion was in accordance with the Rules or de hors the Rules. Only parrot-like reply to every question came that at present we are concerned with selection grade and services of the petitioner are governed by the Rules of 1973 and, we are not concerned with past record of the petitioner.
7. I found learned Counsel for parties to have adopted a strange attitude as neither of them was able to lay down any factual foundation nor they were seeking adjournment and thus, I found it difficult to proceed with the matter. I am of the considered opinion that if factual foundation has not been laid down and there are no proper pleadings, there is no occasion for the Court to entertain the writ petition as, every party is an obligation to plead its case properly and substantiate the pleadings by filing sufficient evidence in support thereto. (Vide Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana , Larson & Tubro v. State of Gujarat, 1998 (4) SCC 387, National Building Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan and Ors. , and Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani and Ors. .
8. More so, taking such a casual approach to the case and not having proper pleadings amounts to contempt of court. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Re: Sanjiv Dutta , observed as under:
Some members of the profession have been adopting perceptibly casual approach to the practice of the profession as is evident from….the filing of incomplete and inaccurate pleadings…and the failure to remove office objections….they do not realise the seriousness of these acts and omissions. They not only amount to the contempt of the Court but do positive disservice to the litigants and create embarrassing situation with Court leading to avoidable, unpleasantness and delay in disposal of matters. This augurs ill for the health of our judicial system.
9. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Bhola Singh v. The Prescribed Authority, Tehsildar and Ors. .
10. In Thakur Sukhpal Singh v. Thakur Kalyan Singh and Anr. , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in absence of proper assistance to the court by the lawyer, there is no obligation on the part of the Court to decide the case, for the simple reason that unless lawyer satisfies the Court that there is some balance in his client’s favour to alter the situation, the Court is not able to decide the case. It is not for the Court itself to decide the controversy. The Court observed as under:
….He (counsel) can not just raise objections in his memorandum of appeal and leave it to the appellate court to give its decision on those points after going through the record and determining the correctness thereof. It is not for the appellate court itself to find out what the points for determination can be and then proceed to give a decision on those points.
11. While deciding the said case, Hon’ble Apex Court placed reliance upon judgment of Privy Council in Mst. Fakrunisa v. Moulvi Izarus AIR 1921 PC 55 and its earlier judgment in Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Lotah .
12. In T.C. Mathai and Anr. v. District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvanannthapuram, Kerala , Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:
The work in a court of law is a serious and responsible function. The primary duty of a…. court is to administer … .justice. Any law or way ward approach, if adopted towards the issues involved in the case, can cause serious consequences for the parties concerned….In the adversary system which is now being followed in India, both in civil and criminal litigation, it is very necessary that the court gets proper assistance from both sides.
13. Similarly, this Court observed in Bhola Singh’s case (supra) as under:
…Moreover, the quality of the judgment depends upon the assistance rendered at the Bar. The Judge can not take the entire responsibility of laying down a correct law unilaterally without any assistance of the learned members of th Bar. The Judge can not afford to retire from Chamber and sit in the library and find out the case law on the issues involved in every case and what is the occasion to do anything in a case where the pleadings are so vague as the petition itself can not be entertained.
14. Thus, in case learned Counsel for the parties were unable to render any assistance, as explained herein above, I find impossible to proceed with the matter and being helpless and, considering that I have no obligation to find out material question of facts viz. under what law petitioner had been appointed and promoted, it is not warranted to proceed with the matter. Further, as no time was sought to prepare the case further. Court has no option but to dismiss the petition, for not rendering proper assistance by the learned Counsel.
15. The petition is accordingly dismissed.