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 10. 08. 1966. He was again promoted as Blasting Supervisor with effect from 1. 11. 1977. PETITIONER claims that he has been denied benefits of selection grade after completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. 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. 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 10. 08. 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. 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 31. 07. 1964, under what provisions of law he had been promoted on a higher post vide order dated 10. 08. 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 has been appointed in 1964 and further promoted in 1966. 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 has 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.
(3.) 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 vs. State of Haryana (1), Larson & Tubro vs. State of Gujarat (2), National Building Construction Corporation vs. S. Raghunathan and others (3), and Ram Narain Arora vs. Asha Rani and others 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, (5), 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 dis-service 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. " Similar view has been taken by this Court in Bhola Singh vs. The Prescribed Authority Tehsildar & ors. ;