JUDGMENT By the Court.—This special appeal has been field against the judgment and order dated 12.4.2006 by which the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that findings of fact cannot be questioned in the writ petition. 2. While assailing the impugned order, Sri N.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that respondents’ version that petitioner has secured 298.39 marks, is incorrect. It is stated that in view of the subsequent application made by the appellant annexing therewith his original testimonials, there was no factual dispute regarding obtaining less marks than the last selected candidate, therefore, His Lordship in the impugned judgment has erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that disputed questions of fact is involved. 3. The facts giving rise to this special appeal are that petitioner applied for Special B.T.C. Training Course-2004. Alongwith the application form, he disclosed his marks, according to which quality point marks of the petitioner was 289.39. At that point of time result of his B.Ed. examination was awaited. At the time of selection, the last candidate in the category in which the petitioner falls, was selected at qualitative point marks 309.90. 4. It appears that a corrigendum was issued by Director, State Council for Educational Research and Training U.P., Lucknow, inviting applications that in case marks of any person have wrongly been calculated, he may make representation annexing the original testimonials. After the aforesaid advertisement was issued,the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 16974 of 2005, Sanjeev Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and others, as he was not selected. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider petitioner’s representation. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a representation before respondent No. 3 annexing therewith the original marks sheets including that of his B. Ed. examination. On the aforesaid representation, the impugned order dated 27.1.2006 was passed by respondent No. 3 holding that petitioner has secured 289.39 quality point marks whereas the last candidate in the category of the petitioner has secured 309.90 marks, therefore, marks of the petitioner being less than the last candidate selected in his category, he cannot be set for training. The appellant thereafter filed writ petition No. 19936 of 2006 which was dismissed vide order and judgment dated 12.4.2006 on the ground that disputed questions of fact cannot be questioned in the writ petition. The appellant thereafter filed writ petition No. 19936 of 2006 which was dismissed vide order and judgment dated 12.4.2006 on the ground that disputed questions of fact cannot be questioned in the writ petition. This judgment is impugned in the present special appeal. 5. While filing the present special appeal, in paragraph No. 2 of the affidavit in support of stay application, the petitioner has disclosed statement of marks secured by him, according to which he has secured 316 quality point marks on adding of the qualitative marks of his B.Ed. examination. Statement of marks given in paragraph No. 2 of the affidavit is quoted below : Sl.No. Examination Board/University Year Marks Maximum Divn. Percentage passed obtained Marks 1. High School U.P. Board Alld. 1989 324 600 I I 54% 2. Intermediate U.P. Board Alld. 1991 285 500 I I 57% 3. B.A. Kanpur University 1995 509 900 I I 56.55 % Kanpur 4. B.Ed. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar 2003 Theory 372 600 I 62% University, Agra Practical 200 I 86% 173 Total 316.00 % 6. Reply of paragraph No. 2 of the affidavit has been given in paragraph No. 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the State which is thus: “2. That the contents of paragraph No. 2 of the affidavit are not admitted as stated. It is further stated that the appellant/petitioner in the initial stage while filling up his application form for the Special B.T.C. Training 2004 has himself mention the total quality point marks 289.33. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant in the said application form dated 12.2.04 which has been filled up in his own handwriting, has mentioned himself that he secure 362 out of 600 in the written examination and 123/200 in practical examination in B.Ed. examination 2003 and he has also given a declaration is mention in the proforma application form No. 003058, by which he has declared that all the details mentioned from serial No. 1 mentioned in the application form are true and no fact has been suppressed and prior to the Section or after inquiry the descriptions given by him are found false or wrong the prescribed officers of the Institute shall have a right not only to cancel his proceed against him. (A photostat copy of the Original application form is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure No. C.A.-1 to this affidavit. (A photostat copy of the Original application form is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure No. C.A.-1 to this affidavit. A bare perusal of the aforesaid annexure clearly shows that the marks of B.Ed. Examination of 2003 are forged and fabricated. It would out of place to mention here that if the mark sheet dated 10.2.2004 of B.Ed. annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the affidavit at page 31 was in the knowledge of the appellant then why a forged and fabricated entry of the marks of B.Ed. examination 2003 was mentioned in the application form.” 7. Lastly, learned standing counsel has tried to justify stand taken by the respondents on the ground that subsequent marks sheet was issued to the petitioner after last date of submission of the form. 8. After going through contents of paragraph No. 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the State, it appears that respondents have taken the stand that at the time of filling up form, the petitioner has given statement of marks in which he has mentioned his quality point marks as 289.33, therefore, subsequent mark sheet of B.Ed. Examination result annexed by him is forged and fabricated and he cannot go beyond the stand taken by him at the time of filling up the form. 9. It is the case of the respondents that marks sheet annexed by the petitioner is subsequent to the date of filling up of form, as such the marks sheet of B.Ed. examination subsequently annexed alongwith the representation, was unreliable and forged. 10. After hearing the counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, we are of the considered opinion that crux of the matter is as to whether the declaration given by the petitioner has binding effect upon subsequent development by which the respondents had themselves issued corrigendum inviting representations / applications for correction in calculation of marks. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had moved the Court by filing Writ Petition No. 16974 of 2005 for redressal of his grievance for correction of quality point marks. This writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make representation and respondent No. 3 was also directed to pass appropriate order on the said representation. It is thereafter that petitioner had filed a fresh representation annexing therewith copies of the marks sheets including that of B.Ed. examination. 11. This writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make representation and respondent No. 3 was also directed to pass appropriate order on the said representation. It is thereafter that petitioner had filed a fresh representation annexing therewith copies of the marks sheets including that of B.Ed. examination. 11. Prior to recording a finding with regard to the forgery in a particular document, opportunity of hearing ought to have been offered to the appellant by the respondents. In other words fraud ought to have been pleaded and proved, the authority concerned before recording this finding was duty bound to have enquired this fact from the University concerned with regard to genuineness of the testimonials before rejecting the document as unreliable. We find that even basic requirements of principles of natural justice have not been observed. Neither any opportunity of hearing was offered to the appellant nor any enquiry was made from the University which has issued the marks sheet. 12. We have also gone through the impugned order in the writ petition dated 27.1.2006 and find that fraud was not the reason for rejecting petitioner’s representation rather the representation was rejected merely on the ground that petitioner has secured less marks (289.33) whereas the last selected candidate in category of the petitioner secured 309.9 quality point marks. 13. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, ( 1978 (I) SCC 405 ), the Apex Court has ruled that order impugned cannot be improved by way of filing counter affidavit and elaborating the reasons. Here, in the instant case, although the respondents have tried to explain and elaborate the reason in support of the order impugned in the writ petition by stating that entries made in the marks sheet are forged but as we have noticed above that for recording this finding it was to be pleaded and proved for that opportunity of hearing was a necessary ingredient which has been denied to the appellant. 14. The submission that marks sheet of B.Ed. issued subsequently to the petitioner cannot be considered as it has neither been pleaded in the counter affidavit or in the order impugned in the writ petition and as such cannot be assailed as a matter of fact while assailing the judgment in the appeal. 14. The submission that marks sheet of B.Ed. issued subsequently to the petitioner cannot be considered as it has neither been pleaded in the counter affidavit or in the order impugned in the writ petition and as such cannot be assailed as a matter of fact while assailing the judgment in the appeal. Moreover, this plea is not available to the respondent otherwise also as they themselves had issued corrigendum and had not challenged the order of the High Court directing respondent No. 3 to decide representation of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 16974 of 2005. 15. As a result of aforesaid discussion, this special appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order dated dated 12.4.2006 passed in the writ petition is set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to proceed in accordance with law and for that purpose if the respondents require, the petitioner shall again supply his original documents alongwith attested copies for scrutiny within a period of three week from the date of receipt of this order. In case original testimonials produced by the petitioner are found to be correct, the respondents shall pass appropriate orders for sending the petitioner for training. This exercise may be completed within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. —————