Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan and Shashank Kr.Singh JJ. 1. This appeal has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company). This party was the respondent in a writ petition which had been filed by Shamim Ahmad. This was C.W.J.C. No. 10848/94; Shamim Ahmad vs. Union of India and others. 2. The petitioner-respondent had been declared successful in the examination for the post of a Development Officer Grade-II but had not been given appointment. Thus, the writ petition against the respondents-appellants that the petitioner-respondent be given the appointment as scheduled. 3. In the counter-affidavit which had been filed, no cogent reason had been given as to why the appointment was denied to the petitioner-respondent. 4. ne appeal, it is submitted that petitioner-respondent did not have the inherent eligibility to even apply for the job of a Development Officer Grade-ll. The contention is that this job was only open to erstwhile agents of the Assurance Company. It is submitted that because of certain malpractices, the Agency of the petitioner had been terminated. 5. The court is afraid what is submitted is not on the record. The matter of eligibility goes to the root of the appointment. The Assurance Company has not been able to place on record on what its counsel submits in the appeal. 6. This court cannot certify that the learned Judge has committed an error in not issuing a direction in the nature of mandamus that the petitioner-respondent be given appointment of a Development Officer Grade-ll. 7. From the record of the order, which has been challenged, it is clear that the learned Judge had made an enquiry from counsel of the Assurance Company that what is contended be shown. The counter-affidavit, which is filed is shabby and vague. This court was required by the learned counsel of the Assurance Company to see the submission made in paragraph 6. The court has read the submissions made in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit. The submissions, which have been made, are not mentioned in this paragraph. The Assurance Company does take the point of the petitioners eligibility but does not give any detail. His submission to the effect that an agency had been terminated for malpractices, misrepresentation or fraud is a pleading which is conspicuous by its absence. There is not even a whisper of this plea in the counter-affidavit. 8. The Assurance Company does take the point of the petitioners eligibility but does not give any detail. His submission to the effect that an agency had been terminated for malpractices, misrepresentation or fraud is a pleading which is conspicuous by its absence. There is not even a whisper of this plea in the counter-affidavit. 8. It is not possible for this court to certify that the learned Judge has committed any error. In fact, the appeal itself is misconceived. 9. Dismissed.