JUDGMENT : 1. This is the second round of litigation by the petitioner with respect to the grievance of non-return of few documents/certificates submitted by the petitioner before the respondents for procuring appointment on compassionate ground. Earlier, a writ petition being CWJC No. 17000 of 2011 was filed for similar/identical relief’s which was disposed of by an order dated 13.12.2011 (Annexure-2). Having appreciated the rival contention and the embroiled questions of facts, this Court directed the District Magistrate to look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in the light of the observations made therein. Indisputably, some of the documents/certificates were returned to the petitioner whereas, it is alleged, two certificates could not be returned. The District Magistrate, after hearing both sides and obtaining reports from the concerned officer and the offices, passed an order wherein the certificates/documents received by the respondents were found to have been returned to the petitioner. With respect to the remaining documents/certificates, the District Magistrate found that there was no convincing material/evidence/proof that those papers/documents were submitted by the petitioner and remained with the respondents to be returned. With respect to the remaining documents/certificates, the District Magistrate found that there was no convincing material/evidence/proof that those papers/documents were submitted by the petitioner and remained with the respondents to be returned. Relevant findings of the District Magistrate in this regard is extracted herienbelow:- ^^vkosnd }kjk dqy 12 izek.k&i=ksa@vad&i=ksa ds tek djus dk nkok fd;k tk jgk gS] ijUrq muesa ls ek= Ng izek.k&i= dh izkfIr jlhn muds }kjk fn[kk;k tk ldk A ftu N% ewy izek.k&i=@vad&i=ksa dh izkfIr jlhn muds }kjk fn[kk;h x;h og mUgsa fnukad 04-03-2013 dks gh ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns’k ds vkyksd esa miyC/k djk fn;k x;k A lquokbZ ds dze esa vkosnd }kjk ,slk dksbZ lk{; vFkok izkfIr jlhn ugha fn[kk;k tk ldk ftlds vk/kkj ij ;g le>k tk lds fd okLro esa ‘ks”k N% ewy izek.k&i=@vad&i= dk;kZy; esa fn;s x;s Fks rFkk og dk;kZy; esa fdlds }kjk izkIr fd;k x;k A tgk¡ rd vkosnd dk mu rFkkdfFkr Ng ewy izek.k&i=ksa@vad&i=ksa dks lh/ks ftykf/kdkjh ds le{k vkosnu ds lkFk layXu dj fn;s tkus dk nkok gS rks og izkfIr jlhn ds :i esa ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS rFkk og ek= bl vk/kkj ij Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd mDr vkosnu ij lacaf/kr inkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk ik’oZ esa gLrk{kj fd;k x;k rFkk vkosnu esa mu lHkh 12 izek.k&i=ksa ds tek gksus ds laca/k esa ppkZ dh x;h gS A ;g fufoZokn gS fd ftyk inkf/kdkjh dks lh/ks feydj vFkok Mkd ds ek/;e ls izkIr gksus okys lHkh i=ksa@vkosnuksa dks ;FkkfLFkfr izkIr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk ik’oZ esa Mkd Lrj ij gLrk{kfjr fd;k tkrk gS A fdlh Hkh vkosnu@i= dks dk;kZy; esa Mkd Lrj ij ek= bl vk/kkj ij vLohd`r ugha fd;k tkrk gS fd blesa fy[ks gq, rF; lgh ugha gSa rFkk vuqyXud I;kZIr ugha gS A vkosnd ftl izdkj izFke N% ewy izek.k&i=ksa@vad&i=ksa dks dk;kZy; esa izkIr djk;s mlh rjg N% ewy izek.k&i=ksa@vad&i=ksa dks dk;kZy; ls ys fy;s A 'ks”k vU; Ng izek.k&i=ksa@vad&i=ksa ds laca/k esa buds }kjk leqfpr lk{; lquokbZ ds nkSjku ugha fn[kk;k tk ldk A bl izdkj vkosnd dk nkok i;kZIr lk{; ds vHkko esa Lohdkj djus ;ksX; ugha gSasaA rnuqlkj eku~uh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 20-02-2013 dks ikfjr vkns’k ds dze esa fnukad 04-03-2013 ,oa muds izfrmRrj fnukad 18-03-2013 dks fu”ikfnr fd;k tkrk gS A** 2. The writ petition assails the aforesaid order passed by the respondent District Magistrate. 3. The writ petition assails the aforesaid order passed by the respondent District Magistrate. 3. While making submission in support of the application, the counsel for the petitioner has reiterated with reference to Anneure-5 that mark-sheets of two semesters of MCA were also submitted by the petitioner which is evident from Annexure-18 to the writ petition. Those documents have not been returned/restored to him. He has however not disputed the return/restoration of other documents/certificates by the respondent. 4. In the counter affidavit the respondents have specifically denied the submission of those two documents/certificate in originals by the petitioner. Relevant statement in this regard is made in paragraph 6. 5. Having bestowed my anxious consideration on the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials on record, it is found that the submission of two documents which the petitioner alleges non return/restoration thereof is a serious disputed question. The Court does not find any clinching or convincing evidence/materials in this regard to accept the contention of the petitioner. The District Magistrate was directed to make inquiry in this regard and ensure return/restoration of the documents/certificates submitted by the petitioner for securing compassionate appointment. The compassionate appointment is generally granted on class III or class IV posts for which certificates of Master degree are not normally required. The District Magistrate in the impugned order on the basis of the enquiry and the report found that they were not actually submitted by the petitioner. The Court is also at a loss to appreciate the present litigation on the part of the petitioner. It has not been submitted that, on requests, authenticated or duplicate copies of the mark-sheet cannot be issued to the petitioner by the concerned educational institution. In the circumstances, the Court declines to invoke its extraordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction and grant relief. 6. The application is dismissed. No order as to costs.