( 1 ) THESE two writ appeals arise out of an order dated 10. 7. 2001, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, disposing of the writ petition, being WP No. 20864 of 2000, filed by the petitioner, praying for the following reliefs:. . . . issue of a writ or order, direction or a writ one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent - (I) in not appointing the petitioner as Driver (Grade-Ill): (2) ordering enquiry vide proceedings No. Pl/684 (iy97-RM-SKLM, dated 22. 7. 1999, as being illegal, arbitrary and against the law laid down by this Hon ble Court in the decision reported in ALT 1994 (2) 28 (DB) and; depriving employment without there being any reason as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently to direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Driver (Grade-Ill) in pursuance of his selection for the same forthwith, with costs of the writ petition, and pass such other relief or reliefs as this Hon ble Court deems fit. ( 2 ) THE parties shall be referred to as arrayed in the writ petition. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The petitioner appears to have obtained driving licence, entitling him to drive Light Motor Vehicle, in the year 1984. The said licence was valid from 24. 8. 1984 to 23. 8. 1987. Thereafter, it was renewed from 24. 8. 1987 to 23. 8. 1990, and again from 30. 9. 1996 to 29. 9. 1999. Admittedly, the said licence was in relation to driving of Light Motor Vehicle. However, as endorsement appears to have been made in the licence vide proceedings C. No. 3221/b3/86, dated 23. 10. 1986, authorising the petitioner to drive Heavy Goods Vehicle and Heavy Passenger Vehicle. ( 3 ) IN the year 1997, a notification was issued by the respondent- Corporation, inviting applications for recruitment of Drivers. The petitioner was selected. However, his selection was cancelled on the ground that the driving licence produced by him was not genuine. The cancellation order was passed purportedly basing on the report of the Zonal Vigilance and Security Officer, Vizianagaram. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed the writ petition. The petitioner was selected. However, his selection was cancelled on the ground that the driving licence produced by him was not genuine. The cancellation order was passed purportedly basing on the report of the Zonal Vigilance and Security Officer, Vizianagaram. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed the writ petition. A learned single Judge of this Court, having regard to the fact situation obtaining in the writ petition, disposed of the same directing: in order to resolve this controversy the writ petitioner is directed to produce a fresh driving licence obtained from the competent authority and submit the same to the respondent, and the respondent shall consider the same for the purpose of giving him employment. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforementioned order, both the petitioner as well as the respondent filed the instant writ appeals. ( 5 ) HAVING regard to the fact that the selection of the petitioner has been cancelled upon arriving at a finding of fact that the driving licence produced by him is not genuine, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order, passed by the learned single Judge cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel appealing on behalf of the petitioner, however, submits that the driving licence produced by the petitioner is a genuine one, and in support of his submission, he drew our attention to the letter dated 7. 4. 1999 addressed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Srikakulam-II Town Police Station, to the Personal Manager, APSRTC, Srikakulam, wherein it is stated: with regard to the reference (supra), I am to inform you that during investigation, the DL No. 3673/r-84 of Sri S. Satya Rao S/o Ramamurthy is found to be a genuine one. Hence, his name is deleted from the list of accused in Cr. No. 211/98 of this Police Station, This is for favour of information. ( 6 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion, that the learned single Judge, having regard to the gravity of the matter as also the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner, ought not to have passed the impugned order. When the petitioner committed an illegality, it could not have been overlooked by directing the petitioner to produce fresh driving licence, and that apart, the writ petition involved serious disputed questions of fact. When the petitioner committed an illegality, it could not have been overlooked by directing the petitioner to produce fresh driving licence, and that apart, the writ petition involved serious disputed questions of fact. In the writ petition, the petitioner stated that he is aged 35 years as on the date of filing of the writ petition. If the said age of the petitioner is taken into consideration, prima facie, we are of the opinion that even a two-wheeler driving licence could not have been granted to him in the year 1984 as he would have been a minor. Further, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, driving licence for driving Heavy Motor Vehicles will be given only when a person possesses minimum three years experience in driving Light Motor Vehicles. Without conducting any driving test and without arriving at a satisfaction that the petitioner is capable of driving heavy vehicles, we wonder as to how, in the licence produced by the petitioner, an endorsement could have been made by the authorities that the petitioner is authorised to drive Heavy Goods Vehicles and Heavy Passenger Vehicles. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons, aforementioned, and on the ground that the writ petition involved disputed questions of fact, we allow the writ appeal being WA No. 1326 of 2001, filed by the respondent, and dismiss the writ appeal being WA No. 1727 of 2001, filed by the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs.