JUDGMENT By the Court—We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at length. We have also examined the impugned order. 2. In a nutshell, we are unable to accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner because we are not sitting in a first appeal over the findings of fact recorded in the impugned order separately on each of the several issues. A writ jurisdiction has a limited scope. 3. By way of example, we may demonstrate what has been held in the first two findings of the impugned order. 4. The first finding relates to an incident of 2nd February, 2005. The allegation is that as against the registered strength of 60 girls in the ‘Bridge Course’, only 33 were found present at the time of inspection and the petitioner was directed to ensure 100 per cent attendance. 5. The explanation of the petitioner to this allegation is that the inspection was conducted on 1st of February, 2005 and the date 2nd of February, 2005 was wrongly put by the inspecting authority. The petitioner relies upon the attendance of the 1st February, 2005 in which only 6 children were absent. No explanation is offered about the attendance of 2nd February. 6. The finding refuses to accept the explanation of the petitioner and holds that the inspection was done on 2nd February 2005, which is the date mentioned on the inspection report. 7. When the inspecting authority has mentioned the date 2nd February, 2005 and the petitioner alleges that this was not the correct date put by the inspecting authority and actually the inspection was carried out on 1st February, 2005, the burden to prove this fact lay upon the petitioner; and we may add that this kind of an allegation puts a rather heavy burden to be discharged by an ‘interested party’ like the petitioner. 8. From the records, we find that apart from the bald assertion of the petitioner that the inspection did not take place on the date mentioned i.e., 2nd February, 2005 but took place on 1st February, 2005, there is no other material furnished. In the circumstances, we are unable to find any such fault in the aforesaid finding of fact recorded in the impugned order regarding the date of inspection as would call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. In the circumstances, we are unable to find any such fault in the aforesaid finding of fact recorded in the impugned order regarding the date of inspection as would call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. By way of second example, we now take up the second finding, which relates to the date 25th February, 2005. The allegation is that on that date both the teachers were missing from the camp and were found going towards Badaun from where they were brought back and asked to call the children; and upon this, out of the registered strength of 60, only 18 girls could be called. The allegation is also that the Pradhan and other villagers informed the inspecting authority that the children do not stay in the camp overnight. 10. The explanation of the petitioner is that on 25th February, 2005, both the teachers were present in the camp. Only 2 of the 60 children were missing, who were actually absent, and the remaining 58 children were present. A photocopy of the attendance register of 25-2-2005 had been produced with the explanation by the petitioner in support of this plea of the petitioner. 11. The finding is that shortly after the inspection dated 25.2.2005, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (in short BSA) wrote a letter No. 5573-74 dated 28.2.2005 mentioning that only 18 children were present on that inspection date i.e., 25.2.2005. The finding further says that the petitioner failed to furnish any timely reply to this allegation of the letter of the BSA. After 10 months of that letter, the petitioner submitted an affidavit dated 12.12.2005 saying that not 18 but 58 girls were present. The finding is that this belated explanation is cooked up after-thought. More importantly the finding is in the attendance register, the figure 18 has been altered by overwriting to 58. 12. In the normal course, if 58 and not 18 children were present on 25.2.2005 at the time of inspection and this fact was mentioned in the letter of the BSA dated 28.2.2005, the normal conduct of a person in place of the petitioner would be to immediately reply to that letter pointing out the factual position and it would not require 10 months to cook up a story, to manufacture documents supporting that story, and then submit the affidavit of explanation. 13. 13. Again, as stated earlier, this is not an appeal of questions of fact. There is no error in the findings of fact, which may call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. In view of what has been stated above, we are unable to interfere in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition Dismissed. ———