- (1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kamta Prasad V/s. M/s B.C.C.L. reported in 2007(3) JLJR 726. That decision as well as the instructions enclosed as Annexure -11 to this writ petition are for determining the age of an employee who is already in employment.
(2.) THE petitioner is not yet in employment. He is seeking employment, and for determining whether he can or cannot be granted employment his age has to be ascertained by the prospective employer. The said prospective employer has determined the petitioner's age to be above 35 years, based upon service records of the petitioner's father. The petitioner on the other hand relies upon his age as mentioned in his matriculation certificate. What is the petitioner's correct age is essentially a question of pure fact which is disputed by the petitioner on one side and his prospective employer i.e. the 10/5/2014 Page 16 respondents on the other side. The finding of fact arrived at by the employers in the context of the employment sought by the petitioner is based upon documentary evidence. The documents cannot be said to be wholly irrelevant. Reappreciation of evidence for the purpose of reversing findings of pure fact on disputed questions in writ jurisdiction is not permissible. A finding of fact may be interfered with, only if it is totally perverse or is based on no evidence at all. Such is not the case here.
(3.) IN the circumstances, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail of any other remedy, like a suit, for getting this question of fact determined, this writ petition is dismissed.;