Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was selected for being appointed as a constable in the police services claiming reservation in the other backward category. This claim of reservation was founded on the strength of a caste-certificate alleged to have been issued from the Office of the Tehsildar, Bulandshahar. 3. The respondents have come up with a case that the said caste certificate was verified, and upon verification it was found that the same was never issued by the Tehsildar, Bulandshahar. An enquiry report was submitted to the effect that the register maintained in the Office of the Tehsildar for recording the issuance of such certificates does not contain any entry in respect of the alleged certificate as produced by the petitioner. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. Nothing has been brought on record to challenge the entries made in the said register. Learned counsel contends that it was the duty of the authorities to maintain the register and if they have not made the entry the same cannot be a ground to dislodge the claim of the petitioner. 5. The aforesaid submission is devoid of merits inasmuch as, it is not the case of the petitioner that it was done with some oblique motive. There was no mala fide on the part of the Tehsildar. On the contrary the endorsement of the word "Nahi" establishes that the said register which is maintained for that purpose does not contain the entry of the certificate which has been produced by the petitioner. 6. Once a finding has been recorded in the order impugned, then it was the duty of the petitioner to have disclosed details of the procedure and manner through which the certificate was obtained. There is nothing to substantiate on this count except a bald averment in Para 7 of the petition which has been denied by the respondents. In the absence of any material being exhibited even before this Court, the matter does not require any remittance before the authority for a fresh hearing as it would be a futile exercise. 7. The petitioner therefore has failed to establish as to the source of issuance of the said certificate and in that view of the matter the action of the respondents cannot be faulted with. Accordingly the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. 7. The petitioner therefore has failed to establish as to the source of issuance of the said certificate and in that view of the matter the action of the respondents cannot be faulted with. Accordingly the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.