JUDGMENT Since the pleadings are complete in this case. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this case is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel for the Respondents. 3. The petitioner, in this writ application, has challenged the order dated 08.10.2005 (Annexure-15), passed by the Respondent No. 4, whereby his appointment as Computer Assistant is cancelled. Challenge also is to the show-cause notice dated 15.09.2005 (Annexure-12), issued to the petitioner prior to the order of termination of his service. Besides praying for quashing the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a direction to the Respondents restraining them from interfering with the petitioner’s services and also directing them to pay his salary. 4. The case of the petitioner in brief is that pursuant to an Advertisement being Advertisement No. 2 of 2000 and Advertisement No. 1 of 2003, issued by the Respondent-University, inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Computer Assistant in the University, he had applied for the post under the Scheduled Caste category. Upon being called by an Interview letter, he had faced the Interview Board, and thereafter, he was given a letter of appointment and pursuant to the letter of appointment, he submitted his joining in the Office of the Respondent-University on 06.04.2005. Though since after the date of his joining, he was discharging his duties, he was not paid the salary in spite of his repeated demands and on the contrary by the impugned show-cause notice (Annexure-12), he was called upon to show cause as to why his appointment should not be cancelled and a criminal case should not be lodged against him on the allegation that upon a preliminary enquiry, it was found that he had secured his appointment letter fraudulently in collusion with Shri N.C. Das, the then Director (Administration) by committing forgery and by putting the University to loss. The petitioner submitted his show-cause replies demanding a copy of the preliminary enquiry report and the materials on the basis of which the accusation of committing forgery and obtaining the appointment letter fraudulently was made. Despite, his show cause replies, the impugned letter of termination of his services (Annexure-15) was issued. 5. Mr. The petitioner submitted his show-cause replies demanding a copy of the preliminary enquiry report and the materials on the basis of which the accusation of committing forgery and obtaining the appointment letter fraudulently was made. Despite, his show cause replies, the impugned letter of termination of his services (Annexure-15) was issued. 5. Mr. V. P. Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that both the impugned show cause notice as well as the impugned order of termination of the petitioner’s services are illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice in as much as the petitioner was not supplied either the copy of the Report of preliminary enquiry or the materials on the basis of which the accusations of fraudulent practices were made against the petitioner and neither was he given any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order of termination of his services. 6. Per contra, the stand taken by the Respondent-University is that the petitioner was never legally appointed to the post of Computer Assistant under the University by the order of the Vice-Chancellor of the University and therefore, since the petitioner was claiming his salary on the basis of an appointment letter, which on preliminary enquiry was detected to be a forged document, the impugned letter of terminating his services was issued and therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order of terminating his service. 7. Mr. A. Allam, learned counsel for the Respondent-University would explain that corresponding to the Advertisement issued by the University for appointment to the post of Computer Assistants under the Respondent-University, the then Vice-Chancellor of the University had appointed as many as 35 Computer Assistants. Such appointments were completed and finalized by the issuance of the appointment letters on 17.07.2004. It was after eight months thereafter that the petitioner and a few other persons had claimed to have been appointed to the post of Computer Assistants under the University by producing a letter of appointment dated 05.03.2005, purported to have been issued by the order of the Vice-Chancellor. A preliminary enquiry was conducted and it was found that the appointment letter produced by the petitioner and a few others, were fabricated documents and obtained with the connivance of the then Director of the University-Shri N. C. Das. A preliminary enquiry was conducted and it was found that the appointment letter produced by the petitioner and a few others, were fabricated documents and obtained with the connivance of the then Director of the University-Shri N. C. Das. Upon such detection of fraud, the impugned show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and others and thereafter, the order of cancellation of the illegal appointments was communicated to the petitioner and the similarly situated other persons, vide the impugned order (Annexure-15). 8. In order to clarify, learned counsel for the Respondents would further explain that the petitioner’s claim of his selection and appointment cannot be accepted on the further ground that in his application submitted in his own hand-writing, he had himself declared that he belonged to the category of other backward communities and not to the Scheduled Caste Category, and yet, he claims that his selection was made and his appointment was recommended by the Selection Committee in the Scheduled Caste category, which, on the face of it, is contradictory. 9. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to the Interview letter (Annexure-7), and the panel prepared by the Selection Committee (Annexure-20), and explain that the petitioner was allotted Roll No. 585 as communicated in his interview letter and in the panel list, the same Roll Number has been mentioned against the petitioner’s name in the Scheduled Caste Category and there is apparently no overwriting or interpolation or manipulation in the panel list, which contains the signatures of each of the members of the Selection Committee. Learned counsel submits further, that the very fact that the Respondent-University has issued the order of termination of the petitioner’s services indicates the admission of the Respondent that the appointment letter was in fact issued to the petitioner. 10. The controversy, as would appear from the rival submissions, is in respect of the genuineness of the appointment letter on the basis of which the petitioner has claimed his right. While the petitioner claims the appointment letter to be genuine, the Respondents have denied and disputed the claim by stating that no such appointment letter was issued and that the petitioner had obtained such letter by practicing fraud and with the connivance of the then Director of the University, and that the petitioner’s name was fraudulently inserted in the select list. Apparently, the controversy relates to disputed questions of facts. Apparently, the controversy relates to disputed questions of facts. The petitioner’s demand that the Respondent should demonstrate as to how and in what manner, the fraud was committed, would certainly involve determination on the basis of the evidences. The controversy being essentially a disputed question of facts, cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The petitioner may resort to remedies available to him under the law before a Court of competent jurisdiction but he certainly cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction for resolution of the disputed question of facts. Under the circumstances, this writ application is dismissed at the stage of admission itself.