1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 963 OF 2009 Shri Surendra Balashankar Dubey ....Petitioner vs 1. Chairman/Secretary, Rashtriya Hindi Prachar Mandal & 2 ors. ....Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8464 OF 2008 Shri Brijesh Kumar Dubey ....Petitioner vs 1. Chairman/Secretary, Rashtriya Hindi Prachar Mandal & 2 ors. ....Respondents Mr. Mandar Limaye for the Petitioners. Ms. Gauri Godse for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. A.P. Vanarse, AGP, for the Respondent No.3 in WP 963/2009. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 25TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. The impugned order warrants no interference. It is detailed and well-reasoned. The matter has been decided on a balance of 2 probabilities. 2. There was no explanation by the Petitioner before the School Tribunal as to the reasons for and the circumstances in which he retained with him xerox copies of various documents of the Respondent-school. Even before me, no explanation was offered for the same. These xerox copies do not tally with the originals relied upon by the management/school, which were produced before the School Tribunal. 3. The School Tribunal has considered the fact that the Education Inspector had signed the documents produced by the school whereas there is no such signature on the xerox copies produced by the Petitioner, as relevant. This was a relevant and an important aspect. I am unable to hold that the reasoning on this regard is perverse or unsustainable. 4. The record produced by the school was, however, challenged, inter alia, on the ground that after the impugned order was passed, the Petitioner made an application under the Right to Information Act. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner received a letter stating that the Education Inspector had not visited the Respondent- 3 school during the period 1st April, 2006 to 31st October, 2006. On this basis, it was contended that the management had, in fact, produced a false record. 5. The submission is not well founded. Firstly, there is no explanation as to why no application was made to summon the Education Inspector or the record. The Petitioner did not do so. After the impugned order was passed, he made the application under the Right to Information Act. The information sought in this application could well have been produced by adopting the normal procedure for summoning the record or the witness. There is no explanation as to why the Petitioner failed to do so when the matter was before the school tribunal. I am, therefore, not inclined to accept Mr. Limaye’s contention that the matter be remanded to the School Tribunal. 6. Secondly, it is important to note that even the reply under the Right to Information Act does not indicate that the Education Inspector had not signed the records of the school. Merely because he did not visit the school during the period for which the documents were maintained does not lead to an inference that he had not signed the documents upon a visit to the school thereafter. No details in this respect are furnished. 4 7. That the attendance register produced by the Respondents showed five students less between the period June 2006 to January 2007 does not indicate anything adverse against the Respondent. There is no reason to presume that the number of students could never have reduced during this period. 8. Similarly, merely because on certain dates certain students have not been marked present in the attendance register does not indicate that the same is fabricated. There is nothing to indicate that the said students were, in fact, present on those dates. 9. Even assuming that the documents available before the School Tribunal and before this court may not be sufficient to convict the Petitioner in a criminal trial, would not affect the validity of the impugned order. However, if any such proceedings are adopted, they would be decided on their own merits. 10. It is not necessary, therefore, to deal with all the other aspects which have also been considered by the School Tribunal. 11. Counsel agree that the result of this petition follows to the 5 result in Writ Petition No.8464 of 2008. 12. In the circumstances, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed.