JUDGMENT : B.B. Mangalmurti, J. This appeal is directed against the order of learned First Court dismissing the writ application wherein the prayer was made to direct the respondent to consider the case of appellant for appointment on the post of Police Constable. 2. The learned Writ Court in W.P.(S) No.781 of 2012 has held as under:- 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 answer sheets. 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 reported in (2009) 1 SCC 168 . 9. 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 reported in (2009) 1 SCC 168 . 9. Before parting with this order, I would like to say that I have very 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. 3. Appellant being a candidate, who applied against an Advertisement No.1 of 2010 for the post of Police Constable in District Police. The appellant was issued admit card and was allotted Roll No.32778. The further case is that appellant appeared in the physical test as well as written test conducted by the respondent-authorities. He did not find his place in the list of successful candidates. He filed an application under Right To Information Act before the Superintendent of Police-cum-Chairman of Police Selection Board to provide marks obtained by him. Due to non-supply of information, he filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chhotanagpur Range, Hazaribagh to provide information under Right To Information Act and thereafter he received the information about the marks obtained by him in the physical test but the marks obtained in the written examination was not made available on the presumption that some answer sheets of Hazaribagh District are unavailable and in some of the answer sheets wrong Roll Number have been mentioned and in some of the answer sheets the Roll Number are not mentioned so it may be possible that some of these mistakes might have been committed by the candidates during the written examination. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that being aggrieved by the judgment of the Writ Court, instant appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the answer sheet of the appellant was misplaced due to the mistake committed by the respondent. The respondents are not showing answer sheets nor adding the marks obtained by the petitioner in the written test otherwise he would have scored sufficient marks to find his place in the list of successful candidates. The information supplied in RTI is based on the presumption that the petitioner might have committed mistakes during the written examination as his answer sheet is not traceable. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the appellant appeared in the selection process as non Home Guard general candidate, who was allotted Roll No.32778. He appeared in the physical test and was awarded points over it. The entire process of physical test was video graphed in order to make transparency in the selection process and the appellant was awarded 10 points in long jump and 10 points in high jump and he has completed run in between 5/6 minutes for which he was awarded 10 points. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that although the appellant was allowed to appear in the written test but his answer sheet could not be located as 39 answer sheets were not returned to the authorities by the candidate. Besides that some answer sheets with the same Roll Number were also detected and altogether 47 such answer sheets were found incorrect and faulty or without mentioning the Roll Number on the answer sheets. Since the answer sheets of the appellant could not be located, the marks of written test could not be added to his credit. He also submitted that the Hon’ble Single Judge held that the Court cannot go into the disputed question of facts and those cannot be effectively adjudicated by the Writ Court. 7. During the course of hearing, this Court directed the respondent to produce original Defective Answer Sheets pertaining to the written test. Accordingly, defective answer sheets were placed before us. 8. On 24th October, 2018 this Court directed as under:- …… State to file an affidavit disclosing therein the fate of the answer script of appellant. 7. During the course of hearing, this Court directed the respondent to produce original Defective Answer Sheets pertaining to the written test. Accordingly, defective answer sheets were placed before us. 8. On 24th October, 2018 this Court directed as under:- …… State to file an affidavit disclosing therein the fate of the answer script of appellant. Let inspection be taken of the answer scripts produced before us today by the learned Advocate for the appellant at a mutually convenient place and time. 9. The above exercise was carried out and again those original answer scripts were placed before this Court along with supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent wherein it is stated that the answer script was inspected by the appellant and one answer script was segregated and was claimed to have been written by the appellant. The photocopy of it has been attached as Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 30.10.2008. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the answer script identified and segregated by the appellant does not belong to him as the Roll Number mentioned over it is different than the Roll Number allotted by the authority to the appellant and there is no similarity. The Roll Number mentioned in the answer script is 239 (over written) 6 whereas the admitted position about the Roll Number of the appellant is 32778. The photocopy of the application form submitted by the appellant is also attached as Annexure-B in the supplementary counter affidavit. The application dated 14.11.2011 and dated 21.12.2011 made under Right To Information Act, copy of which has been attached in the memo of appeal as Annexures 5 and Annexure 6 respectively in which the appellant has also mentioned his Roll Number as 32778–Hazaribagh, which is certainly different and not matching with each other. From the bare perusal, it also appears that the Roll Number on the answer sheets start with 239 and a letter/digit is overwritten and thereafter digit 6 is appearing which is dissimilar to the Roll Number allotted to the appellant being 32778. 11. From the bare perusal, it also appears that the Roll Number on the answer sheets start with 239 and a letter/digit is overwritten and thereafter digit 6 is appearing which is dissimilar to the Roll Number allotted to the appellant being 32778. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent as well as on perusal of the original answer scripts produced on behalf of the respondent as well as the answer script which the appellant segregated from the bunch of defective answer script is found to be dissimilar with regard to the Roll Number mentioned over the answer script and the Roll Number allotted to this appellant. 12. In our considered view, stand taken by the respondent about the mistake committed by the candidate appears to be correct. Due to this reason, the answer sheet of appellant could not be located by the respondent authorities which prompted non-inclusion of his marks of written test while preparing the final marks obtained by appellant. Resultantly, the appellant could not find his place in the list of successful selected candidates. 13. We find no occasion to interfere in the impugned judgment of the Writ Court. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.