is a note of inspection by the Inspector, copy of which is at Exhibit ‘B’ at page 12 of the paper book. That refers to the Resolution of the Management dated 21st July, 2006. The contemporaneous record thus was found in the papers and proceedings of the Management, of which, inspection was taken. If the institute was responsible in either backdating a letter or making overwriting or interpolation in the letter relied upon by the petitioner, then, the least that was expected from respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 till date was to file an affidavit explaining how the Government found the Management’s Resolution in the original record, of which, inspection was taken. If there is indeed such a Resolution, then, there is no explanation as to why the petitioner’s appointment cannot be reckoned from the date in that Resolution. It may be that the said Resolution or its copy was not accompanying the Management’s letter of 10th September, 2006. However, the petitioner cannot be blamed for all this and admittedly, the petitioner has not been attributed any act amounting to fraud or collusion or connivance allegedly with the Management. Thus, there is no overt act attributed to the petitioner. Therefore, the least that was expected is adherence to the principles of natural justice.
