JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 and Mr. D.C. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 5,6,8 and 9 . 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this court to regularize the petitioner in a post under the category of Group-D posts in the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. inasmuch as the petitioner's service was transferred to the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the TSECL. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as a part-time worker on 01.01.1980. A similarly situated part-time worker, namely Ratna Rani Das (SC) has been regularized as would be evident from the offer of appointment under No. F.6(151)-TSECL/05/P-II/27790-825 dated 16.09.2013. According to the petitioner, she is also well covered by the policy of the Government as reflected in the memorandum dated 09.06.2009, Annexure R-2 to the writ petition. 3. Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this court that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have acknowledged the status of the petitioner as DRW. In this regard, a print of the database of DRW/Contingent/Casual/Part-Time etc. who are working on the fixed wages for at least eight hours in different departments has been furnished as Annexure P-2 to the writ petition under the Office of the Deputy General Manager, Electrical Division No. IV, Udaipur, South Tripura. The petitioner has been shown to be working as DRW against her date of engagement on 01.01.1990. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has also brought notice to another document being a communication dated 28.07.2007 by the Deputy General Manager (Corporate) to the Deputy General Manager, Electrical Division No. IV, Udaipur, South Tripura directing them to submit their records in respect of the DRWS/ Contingent Workers like the petitioner. In the said communication at Sl. No.2, the petitioner's name has been shown as DRW and by the said communication, the requisitions as made are as follows : (a) Father's/Husband's name (b) Engagement order and (c) Proof of date of birth 4. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has urged this court that this communication itself is a well authenticated record to have the status of the petitioner. No.2, the petitioner's name has been shown as DRW and by the said communication, the requisitions as made are as follows : (a) Father's/Husband's name (b) Engagement order and (c) Proof of date of birth 4. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has urged this court that this communication itself is a well authenticated record to have the status of the petitioner. That apart, Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has also referred to the communication dated 19.08.2008 by the Deputy General Manager, Electrical Division No. IV, Udaipur, South Tripura to the Deputy General Manager (Corporate), TSECL, Annexure-P/5 to the writ petition where the following entries so far the petitioner is concerned are available : Sl No. Name & Designation Category Date of Engagement order Joining report Original Birth Certificate Original educational qualification certificate 1 Smt. Tulshi Rani Saha. DRW “D” Engaged as on 5.1.92 enclosed zerox copy of engagement order. (also official record is available) Enclosed zerox copy of engagement order Enclosed original Citizenship Certificate (Birth Certificate Enclosed Original educational qualification 5. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has however contended that the petitioner was engaged on 05.01.1992 as DRW and as such, she is well covered by the policy of the Government for regularization. Denial of the benefit of the regularization to the petitioner, according to Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel is entirely arbitrary and smacks of discrimination in view of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has submitted that the policy decision as taken by the government and as published by the memorandum dated 9.6.2009, Annexure R-2 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents No. 2 and 3, would show that the government had relaxed the age and educational qualification for regularization under the Group-D category and as such, even if the petitioner does not have the requisite educational qualifications, the government is bound to relax the educational qualification or the bar created by the age in view of the clause 5 of the said memorandum dated 9.06.2009. 6. Mr. D.C. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 has strenuously argued to impress this court that those communications cannot be relied for purpose of determining the status of the petitioner. Whether the petitioner is a part-time worker or a DRW or a contingent working for more than the required years as per the policy has to be determined by the records maintained in the office. Whether the petitioner is a part-time worker or a DRW or a contingent working for more than the required years as per the policy has to be determined by the records maintained in the office. He has further submitted that the petitioner being a part-time worker cannot be considered under the said government policy for regularization. However, this objection has not been made part of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. The respondents by their counter affidavit has espoused that : "19. The service of the petitioner could not be regularized for having no approval of the Finance Department, Government of Tripura in the Memorandum dated, 9th June-2009 of the Finance Department, Government of Tripura." Only those can be regularized who are approved by the Finance Department and whose names are listed under the memorandum dated 09.06.2009 by the Finance Department, Government of Tripura. Even the respondents have not clarified having regard to the communication as noted above why the petitioner had not been shown as the daily rated worker. Mere oral submissions on this aspect cannot be accepted by the court when the respondents No.2 and 3 have filed the counter affidavit in this matter. This court by the order 28.07.2016 directed the respondents No. 2 and 3 to furnish the material records in respect of one Ratna Rani Das who has also been shown as the part-time worker in some papers but has been included in the list approved by the Finance Department. 7. Mr. Nath, learned counsel has candidly submitted that no such individual records are maintained for the Contingent/Casual/DRWS and the part-time workers. Only a list is maintained in the data base. He has further submitted that since the Finance Department did not approve the name of the petitioner, the respondents No.2 and 3 could not regularize her service. Thus, the question that falls for consideration is whether merely for absence of the name in the approved list by the Finance Department, the petitioner can be deprived from consideration for regularization. The answer must be in the negative. 8. This court has examined the process by giving adequate opportunity to the respondents to show why the communication made by the responsible officers of the Corporation showing the petitioner as the DRW is not to be relied as there exists records created by the official act. No better document has been furnished to debase those records. 8. This court has examined the process by giving adequate opportunity to the respondents to show why the communication made by the responsible officers of the Corporation showing the petitioner as the DRW is not to be relied as there exists records created by the official act. No better document has been furnished to debase those records. A list prepared on the extant documents is not always the best evidence to be considered by the court. The best evidence in such circumstances is comprised in the engagement contract. When 'the appointing authority' makes communication showing the petitioner as the DRW it has to be relied by the court as the primary evidence, inasmuch as the respondents have failed to explain how the petitioner has been shown as a DRW at least since 1992. 9. Having regard to all these emerging facts as noted above, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner has to be deemed as the DRW with effect from 05.01.1992 as borne in the communication dated 19.08.2008, Annexure P-5 to the writ petition. Hence, the petitioner is squarely covered by the memorandum dated 09.06.2009, Annexure P-2 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents No. 2 and 3. Hence, the respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to regularize the petitioner with effect from 01.07.2008 as the petitioner had completed ten years of service as the DRW on 31.03.2008 and to give all the benefits in terms of the memorandum dated 9.06.2009 within a period of four months from today. 10. Having observed thus, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.