According to ihe petitioner, he had joined the post of Upper Division Teacher in the school run by the 4‘” respondent-society sometime in the year 1972. His further claim is that he possessed an the requisite qualiticationsforpromotiontothe postofPrincipaL ltisfurt‘herstatedinthe petition that a responsible person of the society had issued a certificate to the petitioner stating that he had joined the service in the school sometime in the year 1972 and is continuing to work in the said school as in charge Principalr (4) The petitioner further stated that respondent No.5 had joined as Upper Division Teacher in the school run by the 4‘“ respondent-society sometime in the year 1974. According to the petitioner, he is senior to the 5‘“ respondent and his case ought to have been considered by the 4"“ respondent i for promotion to the next promotional post of Principal but instead ot' doing so‘ in order to favour the 5‘“ respondent? who is none other than the younger brother of the Vice President of the society, have appointedhim on the post of Principalt The petitioner aiso produced some correspondence of the Director, Public instruction dated 1510.1 985 wherein it is stated that the petitioner does not have the requisite quaiification for the promotional post of the Principai of the schoolt For the reason best known to the petitioner, he has not called in question the said communication before any forum, that only means that it has become final. (3) (5) Respondent No.5 has filed the return before this Court in which it is stated that the certificate issued to the petitioner by one'of the persons managing the affairs of the school to the effect that the petitioner is working right from the year 1972, is a concocted document and therefore, no reliance can be placed on the said document. He has also stated that the petitioner without questioning the correctness or otherwise of the letter dated 15.10.1985, he could not have merely questioned the promotion of the 5*“ respondent to the promotional post of the Principal of the school run and managed by the 4"“ respondent-society. w C7 .m l\v»‘ (6) One and the only question that arise$ for consideration and decision by this Couri in this case is whether the 4‘“ respendent-society was justified in prcmoting the 5‘“ respondent to the past of Principai of the school run by the 4‘“ respondent-society Admittedly, there was a communication to the petitioner by’the Director, Public Instruction, dated 15.10.1985 wherein he had observed that the petitioner does not have the requis'rte qualification for AL: promotion to the next promotional post of the Principal of the schooli if for any reason, the petitioner was of the‘view that he had the requisite qualification and assertion made in that letter as travesty of truth, he could have questioned the same before an appropriate forum. Having accepted the correspondence of the competent authority which has become final, petitioner couid not have questioned the appointment of the 5‘“ respondent for the promotional post of Principal of the schooi. a, (7) Even otherwise, the respondents in their return have categorically stated on oath that the certificate obtained by the petitioner to the effect that he had joined the service of the school sometime in the year ‘l i, 1972 is a concocted document, has not been countered by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder before this Court. Therefore, the oniy inference that can be drawn is that the certificate was issued in his favour and that he had joined the services in the school sometime in the year 1972 and‘had the requisite the qualification on the date when the 5'“ respondent was promoted, cannot be accepted. (8) in this View of the matter, since the petitioner has not cailed in question the communication of the Director, Pubiic instruction dated 15.19.1985 which has‘become final, relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Accordingly, the petition is iiable to be rejected and it is rejected. Sdl- r¥\ Chief Justice Ordered accordingly.