JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. – In the captioned writ application, prayer has been made to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Police Constable and further to present the fragmented marks obtained by the petitioner in the examination. 2. The facts, which are not in dispute is that pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2010 for appointment on the post of Constable, the petitioner applied and appeared in the physical test as well as in written test, but, his name did not find place in the select list. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner sought for information under R.T.I Act before the Superintendent of Police, Giridih-cumChairman of Police, Selection Board to provide marks obtained by the petitioner category-wise, but, when no information was provided within stipulated period the petitioner approached before Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chotanagpur Range, Hazaribagh, where also he did not get any information. 3. The petitioner, left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 4. Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Amrita Kumari, Associate Counsel to learned Sr. S.C. I for the respondents-State. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the performance of the petitioner was exceptionally well and the petitioner scored very high marks in all tests, but, his appointment was denied on the non est ground that his copy of written examination is missing. It has further been submitted that the answer-sheet has been misplaced due to mistake committed by the respondents and not because of any fault of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that respondents may be directed to provide the answer sheet of the petitioner, so that he could know how many marks he has obtained. It has further been submitted that it is admitted fact that the petitioner obtained 30 marks in physical test and the last selected candidate had obtained 32 marks over all. Hence, there was very probability of getting the petitioner selected finally if marks of written test would have been added. But in the case at hand neither they are showing answer sheet nor adding the marks obtained by the petitioner in the written test. 5. Hence, there was very probability of getting the petitioner selected finally if marks of written test would have been added. But in the case at hand neither they are showing answer sheet nor adding the marks obtained by the petitioner in the written test. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that from the attendance register of written test, it transpires that the petitioner had appeared in the written test and answer sheets were also provided to him, but after written test it was detected that the answer-sheets of the petitioner were unavailable. It has further been submitted that out of the total candidates, who appeared in the written test, copies of 39 candidates have not been returned to the conducting authority by the candidates, hence they are unavailable. Apart from that there are 8 candidates of whom 2-2 answer-sheets with same roll number have been detected and further 47 answer-sheets have been found which are incorrect/faulty. Thus, it is clear that due to lapses on the part of the candidates in writing their roll no., name of district, and missing roll number, their candidature have been rejected and the petitioner is one of them. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of documents available on record, it appears that the petitioner scored well in physical test and a small push in written examination would have made him successful in the Constable appointment examination. But here the respondents have come up with a clear-cut case that out of the total candidates who appeared in the written test copies of 39 candidates have not been returned to the conducting authority by the candidates, hence they are unavailable. Besides, it has further been alleged that there are 8 candidates of whom 2-2 answer-sheets with same roll number have been detected and further 47 answer-sheets have been found which are incorrect/faulty. Furthermore, it is not only the case of the petitioner, whose result has not been published because of faulty answer-sheets but there are number of candidates who have been declared unsuccessful because of faulty/incorrect answersheets. These are all disputed question of facts. 7. This Court cannot go into these disputed question of facts. Moreover, it is no more res integra that these disputed question of facts cannot be effectually adjudicated by the Writ Court. These are all disputed question of facts. 7. This Court cannot go into these disputed question of facts. Moreover, it is no more res integra that these disputed question of facts cannot be effectually adjudicated by the Writ Court. Therefore, the reliefs sought for in the writ application is thoroughly misconceived, illegal and unsustainable. 8. View of the Court gets fortified by the decision rendered by Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of City and Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala & Ors , (2009) 1 SCC 168 . 9. Before parting with this order, I would like to say that I have every sympathy with this young candidate, who in his early twenties in search of bread and butter, with a firm belief and fond hope applied for the post in question, but did not get employment due to non-addition of marks in written test may be for the reasons as assigned by the respondents, but as stated above, this is all disputed question of fact and this Court cannot adjudicate such disputed facts and cannot adopt a "Accommodative approach" to show charity, as charity beyond established principle of law is cruelty to others. 10. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncement, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.