JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal and R.K. Gulati, JJ. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been tiled by Pyare Mohan Verma for mandamus directing the Madhyamik Shiksha Seva Ayog. Uttar Pradesh for fresh interview for appointment on the post of Principal in the Nagar Palika Inter College, Jaunpur. 2. On a vacancy occurring in the College, the Committee of Management wrote a letter to the District Inspector of Schools for notifying the same to the Madhyamik Shiksha Seva Ayog, Uttar Pradesh. This letter was written on April 22, 1985. Upon the letter being written, the post was advertised. In pursuance to the advertisement a number of persons, who can be called outsiders, applied. The names of Pyare Mohan Verma and Surya Bali Shukla, who were serving in the aforesaid College as teachers were also sent by the Committee of Management for consideration to the Madhyamik Shiksha Seva Ayog, Uttar Pradesh. The interview for appointment on the post was held on 24th September, 1985. The Commission notified a panel in which the petitioner's name did not find place, consequently he filed the present writ petition alleging, inter alia, that the interview held was invalid as the mandatory provisions were not followed. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Madhyamik Siksha Seva Ayog, Uttar Pradesh of which a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. One of the points raised in the writ petition was that as the petitioner was a teacher working in the College it was necessary under rule 4 of the U.P. Secondary Education Commission Rules, 1983 to summon the petitioners records and since the records of the petitioner had not been summoned the interview held by the Selection Committee was invalid. The relevant portion of rule 4 is quoted below : "Rule 4(l)(ii) (iv) regard to the post of head of an institution the management shall also forward the names of two senior most teachers copies of their service record (including character rolls) and such other records or particulars as the commission may require from time to time. Explanation. - For the purpose of this sub rule `senior most teachers' means the senior most teachers in the most of highest grade in the institution, irrespective of total service put in the institution." 3. Explanation. - For the purpose of this sub rule `senior most teachers' means the senior most teachers in the most of highest grade in the institution, irrespective of total service put in the institution." 3. In support of the fact that the records had not been summoned the petitioner's counsel took us through Annexures-2, 3 and 6 of the writ petition. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission by the Superintendent, Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Commission, which has been authenticated by the Secretary, it has been stated : "However, it may be stated that the service record of the petitioner was received and the same was duly evaluated and marks for interview were assigned accordingly." 4. An attempt has been made by the petitioner to deny vaguely the assertion made in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit. Annexure-2, 3 and 6 of the writ petition only indicate that the commission was not in possession or the Service Book of the petitioner as well as Surya Bali till 1st week of September, 1985. Even assuming the same to be correct, what is required to be seen is that whether the Commission examined the service book of the petitioner or not ? For this purpose we have summoned the relevant records from the Commission and find that the service book of the petitioner had been considered and evaluated. The petitioner was interviewed as well. The petitioner had obtained 39 marks in total., whereas those who were placed higher than petitioner had obtained 49, 45 and 44 marks. That being so, the point raised by the counsel for petitioner has no merit. 5. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the Sewa Ayog charged imaginary figure of 17 to the petitioner on the basis of the service record although that was not available to it. We have already repelled the argument of the petitioner that the service book was not with the Ayog at the time of interview. It is not believe able that the Ayog will file a false affidavit that it had the record in its possession although the same was not available with it. The petitioner could have a motive to file a false affidavit, but not the Ayog. The affidavit filed on behalf of the Ayog has been authenticated by its Secretary. It is not believe able that the Ayog will file a false affidavit that it had the record in its possession although the same was not available with it. The petitioner could have a motive to file a false affidavit, but not the Ayog. The affidavit filed on behalf of the Ayog has been authenticated by its Secretary. 6 Arguments were also made by the petitioner's counsel Sri T.P. Asthaaa that in awarding the marks the guidelines laid down by the Ayog have not been followed. This is a conjecture. There being no basis for the same in the writ petition. We are not prepared to accept it. There is a presumption of correctness in favour of a body like the Ayog. We have satisfied ourselves from the affidavits filed and exchanged between the parties that the interview was held in accordance with the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner's grievance is unjustified. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.