ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Bihar Public Service Commission. The petitioners are aggrieved by orders dated 6.6.2012 and 4.6.2012 respectively passed by the Commission rejecting their applications to be considered for the post of Assistant Professors in the Department of General Medicine and the Department of Ophthalmology pursuant to Advertisement No. 14 of 2011 and 22 of 2011 respectively dated 20.7.2011. The ground mentioned in the rejection order with regard to both of them is lack of necessary experience. The Advertisement appended to the writ petition inter alia required them to have teaching experience of three years after post graduation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the petitioners have the necessary three years teaching experience after post graduation. They had submitted proof to the Commission in support of the same which may not have been appended to the writ petition. Their services have otherwise been recognized as post graduate persons with three years teaching experience for other purposes by the respondents themselves. The ground for rejection of their application is therefore not sustainable. The order may be set aside and they may be directed to be also considered for appointment. Counsel for the Commission opposed the application submitting that the candidature of the petitioners was examined by the expert committee which did not find materials with regard to teaching experience and thus they were found ineligible. 2. The writ application annexes a photo copy of the application filed by the petitioner no. 2 only. No copy of the application filed by petitioner no. 1 has been enclosed. The writ petition states that they applied with all requisite certificates along with experience certificate of senior resident carrying teaching assignment. Their candidature had therefore wrongly been rejected. The importance of pleadings required to be supported with necessary documentary evidence in writ proceedings was noticed in (2011) 7 SCC 639 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan) observing as follows:- 8. It is a settled proposition of law that a party has to plead its case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate the averments made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete the court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. 9. In Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana1, this Court has observed as under: (SCC p. 543, para 13) “13. 9. In Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana1, this Court has observed as under: (SCC p. 543, para 13) “13. … 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 he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the court will not entertain the point there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not [the] 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.” (emphasis added) A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, Atul Castings Ltd. v. Bawa Gurvachan Singh and Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti v. Union of India. 10. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question(s) in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is settled legal proposition that “as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted”. Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. 11. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. If any factual or legal issue, despite having merit, has not been raised by the parties, the court should not decide the same as the opposite counsel does not have a fair opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted in that regard. If any factual or legal issue, despite having merit, has not been raised by the parties, the court should not decide the same as the opposite counsel does not have a fair opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted in that regard. Such a judgment may be violative of the principles of natural justice. (Vide Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College and Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P. Joshi.)” The application of petitioner no. 2 does not state in any column that he had worked as a resident tutor or the period of the same. In the column 8(iii), there is no statement with regard to his teaching experience. Column 8(v) pertaining to the IGIMS also does not mention the nature of duties discharged but only disclosed that he has worked there for three years. It is not known what details were furnished by petitioner no. 1 in his application. Column 8(v) required a candidate to furnish details of the particulars with regard to teaching experience along with the name of the recognized medical college and/or hospital. Unfortunately, the petitioners appear to have failed to exercise that limited caution that was required on part of a candidate applying for a job in a fiercely competitive market. If the Commission came to the conclusion that he had not furnished details of his teaching experience, the Court cannot find fault with the impugned order on the face of the application submitted. This is not to say that the petitioners may not have possessed three years of teaching experience. They may have possessed the same as contended. The question is of their failure to furnish adequate information in the application form. The writ application is dismissed.