view that if that was the position, this was a disputed question of fact and it could not be resolved in the Writ Court. The appellants should have taken recourse to the statutory remedy available of filing an appeal before the contempt Appellate Authority where on inquiry into facts these issues could be decided. The learned Writ Court also by merely taking note of the affidavit without there being any supporting evidence should not have gone into the merit of the matter instead, should have relegated the parties to take recourse to the remedy available of filing an appeal before the competent authority. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we are not inclined to interfere into the matter directly, instead, we grant liberty to the appellants to challenge the selection by approaching the Appellate Authority in accordance with the scheme for appointment and it would be for the Appellate Authority to take a decision on the matter. The findings recorded with regard to the merit- list prepared and the application submitted by the appellant for the second selection having been recorded by the learned Writ Court without proper inquiry, in case an appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority shall be at liberty to reassess the matter afresh in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations in this regard made by the Writ Court. In rejecting the claim of the appellants by holding that if only one application was received, fresh selection could be ordered,
