Heard Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned G A appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Learned G A submits that even on careful perusal of the writ petition he could not understand the case of the writ petitioners. The writ petition is very vague and also from the manner in which the writ petitioners are seeking relief as seen from the writ petition, it is also not clear what relief is sought for. 2. On the perusal of the writ petition it is clear that the writ petition has been drafted against the norms and manners for drafting the writ petition. In order to see as to how this writ petition has been drafted, all the paragraphs i.e. para Nos. 1 to 9 of the petitioner, which are full of spelling mistake and grammatical errors, are quoted below: “1. That, the petitioners are all from various place of Manipur and bonafide citizens of India as such they are entitled all the preveledges under Constitution of India. 2. That, the petitioners were terminated by the Government of Manipur from their post held by the as Lower Division Clerk in Revenue Department, Government of Manipur in the year, 1989. 3. That, the same was challenged in C.R.No.825/1989 to the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble Court directed the respondents to the reinstated them held by the petitioner. -A true copy of the said order is Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-A/1. 4. That, according the Manipur Government has issued order and reinstated to some of the terminated L.D.C.'s. 5. That, due to delay of the Govt. Act. The petitioners filed a contempt petition being Civil Contempt petition No. 118/2003. -A true copy of the order issued by the Under Secretary is annexed as Annexure- A/2. 6. That, during the pendency of the contempt proceeding the Under Secretary issued in order that the petitioners shall be reinstated after Bar Lifting of appointment in Manipur State. -A Zerox copy of the list of the members to be reinstated is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-A/3. 7. That, ban in Manipur State board only fresh appointment not such reinstated, promotion. As such, the present order give harassment to the petitioner to face a long legal proceedings. Further, there is no any accurate period to open the ban of fresh appointment. 8. 7. That, ban in Manipur State board only fresh appointment not such reinstated, promotion. As such, the present order give harassment to the petitioner to face a long legal proceedings. Further, there is no any accurate period to open the ban of fresh appointment. 8. That, in this regard, the petitioners approached the respondents for re-consider the matter as there is no ban to reinstated of service by virtue of court's order of anything else except fresh appointment. 9. That, there is nothing to do except filling this writ petition under Article 226 of Indian Constitution as there is no alternative remedy. It is, therefore prayed that, Your Lordship be pleased to issue rule calling upon the respondents that why the petitioners and their members shall not be appointed as per the vacancy post in the Revenue Department, Government of Manipur immediately any other relief/reliefs, direction/directions and order/orders which the Hon'ble court deems fit and proper for the ends of Justice.” 3. In para No. 2 of the writ petition, it is mentioned that the petitioners were terminated from their service but nothing is mentioned about the date and particulars of the said termination order and also who issued the termination. 4. In para No. 3 of the writ petition, nothing is mentioned about the particulars of the termination order which was challenged before the Hon'ble Court and who had filed the C.R.No.825 of 1989 before the High Court and also did not mention the date of the judgment and order passed by this Court. From perusal of the Annexure-A/1 to the writ petition, it has been seen that the writ petitioner of the C.R. No. 825 of 1989 is an Association “The All Manipuir Revenue Department officiating Lower Division Clerk(L.D.C.) Association”. But in the para No. 3 of the writ petition, nothing is mentioned as to whether the writ petitioners of the present writ petition are the members of the petitioners association of the C.R. No. 825 of 1989 or not? 5. That, in para No. 4 of the writ petition, nothing is mentioned about the date and particulars of the order said to have been issued and also who was the authority. 6. That, in para.5 of the writ petition, nothing is mentioned as to how the Contempt Petition No. 118 of 2003 was disposed of and what was the actions taken up by the Govt. of Manipur. 6. That, in para.5 of the writ petition, nothing is mentioned as to how the Contempt Petition No. 118 of 2003 was disposed of and what was the actions taken up by the Govt. of Manipur. But without mentioning anything about any order, it has been mentioned that a true copy of the order issued by the Under Secretary is annexed as Anneuxre-A/2. Again, nothing is mentioned about the date and particulars of the order said to have been issued by the Under Secretary and also did not mentioned about the fact that the said Under Secretary was in charge of which Department of the Govt. of Manipur ? 7. That, it is not clear from the writ petition about the facts, the materials and right basing on which the petitioners are seeking the vague relief in the present writ petition. We may recall the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat Singh & others -versus- State of Haryana & others reported in AIR 1988 SC 2181 that “In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded of the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the court will not entertain the point. In this context, it will not be out of place to point out that in this regard there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and as writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. So, the point that has been raised before us by the appellants is not entertainable.” 8. The Apex Court in Krishna Priya Ganguly & others Vs University of Lucknow & others reported in (1984) 1 SCC 307 -held that relief should be confined to those specifically prayed for in the petition. So, the point that has been raised before us by the appellants is not entertainable.” 8. The Apex Court in Krishna Priya Ganguly & others Vs University of Lucknow & others reported in (1984) 1 SCC 307 -held that relief should be confined to those specifically prayed for in the petition. Para 26 of SCC in Krishna Priya Ganguly & others (supra) is quoted hereunder: “26. The High Court further observed that the respondent appears to be a very dedicated worker having acquired a diploma and would have proved an invaluable asset to the Institution. We do not see any proper material for this conclusion to which the High Court has suddenly jumped apart from the f act that admissions were not to be given by the High Court according to its own notions. Finally in his own petition in the High Court, the respondent had merely prayed for a writ directing the State or the college to consider his case for admission yet the High Court went a step further and straightaway issued a writ of mandamus directing the college to admit him to the M.S. course and thus granted a relief to the respondent which he himself never prayed for and could not have prayed for. Such a gross discrimination made in the case of a person who had obtained lowest aggregate and lowest position seems to us to be extremely shocking. Although much could be said against the view taken by the High Court yet we would not like to say more than this that the High Court had made a very arbitrary, casual and laconic approach to the case and based its judgment purely on speculation and conjectures swept away by the consideration that Dr.Sinha possessed a diploma when in fact other candidates also had obtained diploma but that could not be taken into consideration, because the Rules did not so provide.” 9. The Apex Court in Narendra Bahadur Singh & another - versus- State of U.P and anothers reported in (1997) 1 SCC 261 ,held that the petitioners challenging the factual basis of any notification must make the necessary averments of fact in his petition to enable the others party to bring the materials facts on record. Para 6 of the SCC in Narendra Bahadur Singh (Supra) in quoted hereunder: “6. Para 6 of the SCC in Narendra Bahadur Singh (Supra) in quoted hereunder: “6. So far as the ground is concerned that the persons for whose rehabilitation the land is sought to be acquired are not refugees, Mr. Desai could not in spite of our query refer us to any paragraph in the writ petition wherein the above ground had been taken. All the same, he submitted that as the question had been allowed to be agitated before the High Court, we should not debar the appellants from advancing arguments on that score. The submission made by the learned counsel in this behalf is that there is nothing to show that the persons for whose benefit the land is being acquired are settled in Uttar Pradesh. In this respect we are of the view that the question as to whether those persons are settled in Uttar Pradesh or not is essentially one of fact. In the absence of any averment in the writ petition that the persons concerned were not settled in Uttar Pradesh, it is obvious that the material facts having bearing on this point could not be brought on record. A party seeking to challenge the validity of a notification on a ground involving questions of fact should make necessary averments of fact before it can assail the notification on that ground. As such we find it difficult to sustain the contention of Mr. Desai that the persons for whose benefit the land is being acquired were not settled in Uttar Pradesh. Apart from that, we find that ground 13 taken in the writ petition proceeds upon the assumption that the persons for whose benefit the land was being acquired were in fact refugees. It further appears from the judgment of the Division Bench that there was hardly any dispute before the Division Bench on the point that the respondent society, namely, Sufferers' Cooperative Housing Society, consists of refugees and has refugees as its members.” 10. It further appears from the judgment of the Division Bench that there was hardly any dispute before the Division Bench on the point that the respondent society, namely, Sufferers' Cooperative Housing Society, consists of refugees and has refugees as its members.” 10. We may also profitably refer to the decision of the Apex Court in S.S. Sharma & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors reported in AIR 1981 SC 588 wherein the Apex Court held that; “the Courts should ordinarily insist on the parties being confined to their specific written pleadings and should not be permitted to deviate from them by way of modification or supplementation except through the swell-known process of formally applying for amendment. It is not that justice should be available to only those who approach the court confined in a straitjacket. But there is a procedure known to the law, and long established by codified practice and good reason, for seeking amendment of the pleadings. Besides this, oral submissions raising new points for the first time tend to do grave injury to a contesting party by depriving it of the opportunity, to which the principles of natural justice. Again the Apex Court in Kedar Nath Bahl Vs State of Punjab & Ors reported in AIR 1979 SC 220 clearly mentions about the requirement of furnishing necessary particulars in the writ petition basing on which the writ petitioner sought for relief in the writ petition. 11. For the reasons mentioned above, this writ petition is deserved to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 12. It appears that very recently many writ petitions, in the manner the present writ petition is drafted, had been filed by the younger lawyers in this Bench. It is very surprising that some of the writ petitions are so vague and careless in drafting by the young lawyers that the writ petitions consist of only one or two pages in which no materials are mentioned for seeking the reliefs and while annexing the documents as Annexure to the writ petition, instead of annexing whole documents, a page of it is annexed and thereby misleading this court. And as such, time has come to take up appropriate steps from the side of the Bar to maintain hard earned prestige and very good reputation of this Bench. And as such, time has come to take up appropriate steps from the side of the Bar to maintain hard earned prestige and very good reputation of this Bench. It is known to all that, Bar Association of this Bench is full of capable and efficient members who are very well versed in law. Furnish a copy of this order to the learned Advocate for the petitioners who drafted this writ petition, the President and Secretary of the High Court Bar Association of this Bench and President and Secretary of the All Manipur Bar Association. Registry is directed to take necessary steps for furnishing a copy of this order to the persons concerned forthwith.