C.T. Ravikumar, J.

1. A succinct narration of the facts that constrained the petitioner to submit Ext.P2 representation is required for considering this writ petition that carries a seemingly innocuous prayer. On coming to know that there are vacancies under the 4th respondent for appointment to the post of Peon, the petitioner claims to have submitted Ext.P1 application seeking consideration of his candidature for appointment. The contention of the petitioner is that thereupon, the 4th respondent offered him appointment on payment of Rs.3,00,000/- as donation. According to the petitioner, on 27.10.2011, he handed over the said amount in the presence of two witnesses believing the promises held out by the 4th respondent. The case of the petitioner is that despite handing over such an amount, he has not been given appointment so far as promised and in the circumstances, he submitted Ext.P2 representation before the first respondent carrying the request for interference in the matter to create a conducive situation for his appointment. It is the non-feasance on the part of the first respondent despite the receipt of Ext.P2 that constrained the petitioner to file the captioned