The Hon’ble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao WPMP.No.24827 of 2010 in/& Writ Petition No.16292 of 2010 Common Order: This Writ Petition has been instituted by two individuals seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2- Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh, in not considering their candidature for selection to Class-IV posts, notified by it on 9th June, 2010, as bad in law and for a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment against the said Class-IV vacancies. It is submitted that the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh through its notification, dated 09-06-2010, invited applications from Scheduled Tribe Candidates for filling up the backlog vacancies of Class-IV in its service. Though the petitioners possess the requisite qualification viz., pass in 7th class examination and though they are within the age limit prescribed, their candidature has not been considered for totally unjust reasons. The writ petitioners assert that they have passed 7th class common examination conducted in April, 1996. The first petitioner is alleged to have secured 585 marks out of 600 while the second petitioner is said to have secured 584 marks out of 600 in the said examination. Since both of them belong to Scheduled Tribe community, they staked their claim for consideration of their candidature for recruitment, pursuant to the notification, dated 09-06-2001. On behalf of the second respondent- Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh, its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director has filed a detailed counter-affidavit in the matter. It is stated therein that while scrutinizing the applications received by the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh, a genuine doubt has been entertained by its Officers about the genuineness of the candidature of the writ petitioners herein for the following reasons: (1) The first petitioner claimed his date of birth to be as 10-02-1980 whereas the second petitioner claimed her date of birth as 21-07-1984, but however, they both seem to have studied in Sri Durga High School at Lalapet, Secunderabad, and appeared for the 7th class common examination in April, 1996 and secured 585 out of 600 and 584 out of 600 marks respectively. Since a difference of more than four years exists in their ages, and since they have secured such high percentage of marks ie., 585 and 584 out of 600, which are on an average 97%, the authorities had reason to suspect that the certificates produced by them may not be genuine. (2) The copy of the certificates has been obviously printed some time in the year 2000. Since the writ petitioners are stated to have passed the examination in April, 1996, the head master of the school has rounded off the figure ‘200’ appearing on the face of the certificate and incorporated the figure ‘1996’. If truly the writ petitioners have appeared for the 7th class common examination conducted in April, 1996, no school would have got the certificates printed nearly four years ahead of its time by printing the figures ‘200’ after the expression ‘April’. In these set of circumstances, the matter has been referred to the District Educational Officer, Hyderabad, who has reported on 29th June, 2010, that he has obtained the Central Marks Register pertaining to the year 1995-96 from Sri Durga High School, Lalapet, Secunderabad, for verification and that he has found discrepancies therein. In view of the glaring discrepancies noticed by him, he has opined that the certificates produced by the writ petitioners are not genuine. When this matter appeared before me on 13 July, 2010, I directed the second respondent to depute an Officer, not below the rank of an Assistant Director, to visit Sri Durga High School, Lalapet, Secunderabad, and file his findings with regard to the genuineness of the certificates produced by the writ petitioners. It is now brought to my notice that the second respondent has deputed an Administrative Officer and a Deputy Director, both of whom were occupying posts higher than that of Assistant Director, for the purpose of verification of school records. According to the report, dated 29-07-2010, produced before the Court, these two Officers are said to have visited the school on 29th July, 2010 and interacted with the Head Master concerned, who in turn informed that the records concerning the writ petitioners have been seized by the District Educational Officer, Hyderabad, and that they are in his custody. Accordingly, these two Officers have approached the District Educational Officer, Hyderabad, enquired about the said records and have verified the Admission Register and the Central Marks Register for the years 1980-99 and 1995-96 respectively of Sri Durga High School, Lalapet, Secunderabad. On verification of the Central Marks Register, they found that the roll numbers of the writ petitioners have been recorded as 32115 and 32116 respectively in the last page and that there was clear overlapping of these entries over the authentication and signature facsimile of the Deputy Educational Officer. According to them, it was obvious to naked eye that the records of the said school had been manipulated. It is further pointed out in the said report that even with regard to the admission register, while the students were given admission numbers in the serial order, the first petitioner was given No.432/1 and the second petitioner was given No.538/1. Since there was a gap in between serial numbers 432 and 433 and between 538 and 539, this manipulation has become feasible and both the petitioners were assigned numbers 432/1 and 538/1. It is not as if that no name appears against serial Nos.433 and 539. Therefore, if genuinely the writ petitioners got admitted into the same school, as per the normal human conduct their names should have been figured at serial numbers 433 and 539 but not by assigning the numbers 432/1 and 538/1. In view of this report, the Officers tried to sustain the action of the respondents. On 4th August, 2010, when the matter appeared before me, I also had an occasion to peruse both the admission register as well as the Central Marks Register of Sri Durga High School, produced by the office of the District Educational Officer, Hyderabad. Prima facie, I am satisfied that the findings of the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh does not appear to be fanciful or imaginary in that regard. There appears to be some scope to suspect the genuineness of the certificates produced by the writ petitioners herein. The petitioners have now taken out WPMP.No.24827 of 2010 seeking to implead the Principal Secretary to the Government in the School Education Department, the District Educational Officers at Guntur and Hyderabad, the Head Master of A.B.M. High School, Guntur, and the Head Master of Sri Durga High School, Lalapet, Secunderabad, as party respondents. It is sought to be contended by the petitioners that an enquiry deserves to be ordered in the matter for the purpose of ascertaining the genuineness or otherwise of the certificates produced by the petitioners herein. I am afraid that this petition cannot be ordered, as it will be travelling beyond the scope and purpose of the Writ Petition itself. The Courts should not conduct roving enquiry into any matter, particularly, when it involves disputed questions of fact. There are adequate mechanisms available for the aggrieved party to see that an enquiry is conducted by the competent authority. The Commissioner for Government Examinations and the Director of School Education are competent authorities for the purpose of ascertaining the genuineness of the certificates produced by the writ petitioners with regard to the 7th class common examination conducted during April, 1996, whereat they claim to have appeared and secured 585 and 584 marks out of 600 respectively. Therefore, it is certainly open to the writ petitioners to take up the matter with the competent authority for the purpose of establishing the genuineness of the certificates produced by them. It would not be very difficult either for the Director of School Education or Commissioner for Government Examinations to get them verified inasmuch as both the petitioners have secured such high percentage of marks. Therefore, the action of the second respondent-Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh, in not considering the certificates produced by the writ petitioners as not genuine, cannot be ruled out as totally unfair on its part. Leaving liberty to the writ petitioners to agitate their claims before the competent authority about the genuineness of the certificates produced by them, vouching their appearance at the 7th class common examination conducted during April, 1996, by the Hyderabad District, the Writ Petition is dismissed, but, however, without costs. For the reasons stated above, the implead application being WPMP.No.24827 of 2010 also stands dismissed. _________________________ (Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J) 10th August, 2010 LUR