Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J. - Students of Class IX studying in the Vikas Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institution') and the Committee of Management of the Institution have filed this petition for a direction upon the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffar Nagar to issue the Registration Forms appearing of the High School Examination in the next academic session. 2. It is stated in the petition that pursuant to the letter sent by the District Inspector of Schools to the Principal of the Institution for depositing the prescribed fees and obtaining the Registration Forms for the students of Class IX, the Principal of the Institution went to the office of the District Inspector of Schools and submitted an application dated 20th October, 2009 for obtaining the Registration Forms for the session 2009-10. It is further stated that another application dated 30th October, 2009 was also submitted in the office of the District Inspector of Schools for obtaining Registration Forms of the 228 Class IX students. However, the Registration Forms were not issued though all the formalities including depositing of fees of the students had been completed. 3. When the matter was taken up on 7th November, 2009 the Court directed the learned Standing Counsel to seek instruction and the matter was directed to be listed on 11th November, 2009. On 11th November, 2009, the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffar Nagar appeared before the Court with the relevant records and informed the Court as to why the Registration Forms were not issued. The Court passed a detailed order on 11th November, 2009 which is as follows: "This petition has been filed by 228 students and the Committee of Management, Vikas Uchattar Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Budhana, District Muzaffarnagar. The relief sought for by this petition is that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 228, who were alleged to be the registered students of the aforementioned college, were not being issued the registration forms (OMR Sheet) by the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar, even though he had received the same from the Intermediate Education Board. This Court had passed a detailed order on 7.11.2009 directing the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions in the matter. Today Sri Kamta Ram Pal, District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar is present in the Court along with the relevant records. This Court had passed a detailed order on 7.11.2009 directing the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions in the matter. Today Sri Kamta Ram Pal, District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar is present in the Court along with the relevant records. Sri R.P. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel upon instructions received from him has informed the Court that the college initially applied for issue of 250 forms for the registration of Class IX students vide request dated 15.10.2009 and also deposited Rs. 5.000/- for such 250 students @ Rs. 20/- per student with the State Bank of India. Such request and the receipt of the deposit have been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Subsequently the college made a request to the District Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 20.10.2009 to issue 228 forms in place of 250 forms for registration of Class IX students. This request has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Today Sri Tiwari has placed before the Court an inquiry report made by the Principal of the Government Inter College, Muzaffar nagar who was directed to make physical verification with regard to the registration of the students in Classes, IX, X, XI & XII. The inspection was made on 15.10.2009. It was found that in Class IX only 37 students were registered in the college records and out of which only 9 were present. Further a note was made by the Principal of the Government Inter College that although the college in question has recognition only up to Class X but it was illegally continuing the Classes of XI & XII in the college. It was in these circumstances that the forms were not issued to the college on account of substantial inaccuracies found in the records of the college and also in the requests made by the college from time to time. Sri Tiwari has further stated upon instructions from the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffar nagar that as and when the principal of the college approaches the District Inspector of Schools along with the students duly registered in the institution, he shall make available the necessary forms without any delay on the same day and get them filled up at the spot itself. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the Principal of the College in question is likely to come within 24 hours. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the Principal of the College in question is likely to come within 24 hours. Put up this matter day after tomorrow i.e. 13.11.2009 in the additional cause list. On the said date the Principal as also the Manager of the College shall remain present before this Court along with the relevant records not only relating to Class IX registration but also Classes XI & XII." 4. On 13th November, 2009, Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh, Principal of the Government Inter College, Muzaffar Nagar, who had made an inspection of the Institution on 15th October, 2009, appeared before the Court with the relevant records. The Court examined the records and passed an order which is quoted below: Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners upon instructions from the Principal of the Institution, has stated that in fact no inspection of the college took place on 15.10.2009. On the other hand the Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, Principal of the Government Inter College, Muzaffarnagar, who had made the inspection and submitted his report on 15.10.2009, is present along with the relevant record, relating to the inspection. Sri R.P. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel upon instructions has stated that Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh, Principal of the Government Inter College, Muzaffarnagar at the time of the inspection of the petitioners' institution, which was specifically with regard to the students in Class IX, had put his signatures on all the registers which were produced before him by the Principal or the Manager of the College. It is further submitted that the registers produced today have been prepared subsequently and they do not bear the signatures of Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh. These registers which are being produced today before the Court were never produced before Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh as they were not in existence at that time. It is further submitted by Sri Tiwari that the petitioners' institution never registered 228 students or any near by strength in the month of July, 2009. In any case, according to Sri Tiwari, the students have been registered only in the month of October, 2009 and the registers have been manipulated to show that they were admitted in July, 2009. With regard to the running of Classes XI & XII in the institution, Sri Mishra has denied that no such classes are being run in the petitioners' college. With regard to the running of Classes XI & XII in the institution, Sri Mishra has denied that no such classes are being run in the petitioners' college. Since the orders passed on 11.11.2009 and even today are based upon the instructions and the records produced by the parties, it would be appropriate that affidavits should be filed by both the sides. First let the affidavits of the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar and the Principal of the Government Inter College, Muzaffarnagar be filed bringing on record the complete facts then an opportunity will be given to the petitioners' institution to rebut the same. For the said purpose Standing Counsel prays for and is allowed two weeks time to file counter affidavits of both the aforementioned officers. The petitioners institution has produced the admission forms of 228 students, who are said to be mentioned in the four registers produced today as also a list thereof is enclosed as Annexure-5 to the petition, and prayed that it may be permitted to fill up the registration forms (OMR Sheet) otherwise students would suffer irreparable loss. Sri R.P. Tiwari upon instructions from the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar has stated that he will get the forms registered even after the expiry of the last date provided the petitioners continue to study in the petitioners' college. His apprehension is that as the students have been subsequently included in the relevant record, it would be proper that first the inquiry be completed and finding be recorded by this Court with regard to the interpolation committed by the petitioners' institution. He further submitted that the petitioners' college may continue to impart education to the students of Class IX so that they do not suffer any further. Petitioners' institution will ensure that the copy of this order is supplied to the parents of all the 228 students within a week from today. It is made clear that this Court is not keeping the career of the students into any jeopardy provided they are bonafide students of the college and have got themselves registered in the institution. In case ultimately it is found that these 228 students are registered in the college and are studying, whether from the month of July or October, 2009 the Court will pass appropriate orders protecting their interest. In case ultimately it is found that these 228 students are registered in the college and are studying, whether from the month of July or October, 2009 the Court will pass appropriate orders protecting their interest. The issue which is being considered is as to whether the petitioners' college actually admitted these 228 students in the month of July or in the month of October, 2009. However, if it is found that the students were admitted after 15.10.2009, the Court will consider passing appropriate orders against the Management and the Principal of the College. List this matter on 7.12.2009. The petition may be taken up on that date upon mention being made by either of the parties." 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated in the counter affidavit that 228 students are not studying in the Institution and only 37 students were registered for the session 2009-10 as is clear from the enquiry report submitted by Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh, Principal of the Government Inter College, Muzaffar Nagar. It is for this reason that the Registration Forms have not been issued to the petitioners. Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh has also filed his own affidavit and the relevant paragraphs are as follows: 3. That, the D.I.O.S. Muzaffar Nagar ordered the deponent on 14.10.09 to inspect the three Schools physically i.e. Rashtirya Inter College, Budhana, Muzaffar Nagar, Vikas Hr. Secondary School, Budhana, Muzaffar Nagar and Kamla Devi Hr. Secondary School, Kamapur(Shahpur), Muzaffar Nagar and verify the number of students studying at IX standard for their Registration. 4. That, in pursuance of the aforesaid order the deponent inspected the above mentioned three Schools on 15.10.09 and put his signature and seal on each attendance registers produced before him by the Managers/Principals of the Schools. 5. That apart from the aforesaid inspection made by the deponent, the deponent inspected the Rashtirya Inter College, Budhana, Muzaffar Nagar on the same date i.e. 15.10.09 and put his signature and seal on the attendance register. 6. That in Vikas Hr. Secondary School, Budhana, Muzaffar Nagar the deponent found only 09 students present in IX class whereas 37 students were enrolled in that class. 7. That it is stated that only 13 students out of 50 were present in X class during inspection by the deponent. 8. 6. That in Vikas Hr. Secondary School, Budhana, Muzaffar Nagar the deponent found only 09 students present in IX class whereas 37 students were enrolled in that class. 7. That it is stated that only 13 students out of 50 were present in X class during inspection by the deponent. 8. That it is further stated that School Manager was also running XI & XII classes at his school whereas his school is recognised only upto High School standard. The attendance registers of these classes had been taken in custody by the deponent and submitted them to the D.I.O.S., Muzaffar Nagar. 9. That the deponent submitted his inspection report vide letter dated No. PRABANDH/411/2003-10-Dated 15.10.2003 to the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffar Nagar containing the actual number of students studying in IX and X classes as above named three schools. 6. The petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavits to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents as also to the affidavit filed by Dr. Mahdendra Pratap Singh. It is stated that the District Inspector of Schools did not give any information to the Committee of Management regarding the appointment of the Enquiry Officer and that no enquiry was conducted by Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh on 15th October, 2009. It is also stated that he never made any endorsement on the attendance register of Class IX. Infact, on 14th October, 2009, the Committee of Management of the Institution had issued a notice declaring holidays from 15th October, 2009 to 20th October, 2009. It is also stated that the 228 students of Class IX had taken admission in the Institution in July, 2009. Similar averments have been made in the rejoinder affidavit filed to the affidavit of Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh. 7. Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that 228 students had been validly admitted in the Institution in Class IX for the session 2009-10 and for the purposes of the High School Examination to be held in 2010, the Registration Forms were to be issued by the District Inspector of Schools and even though all the formalities had been completed, the Registration forms were not issued in view of the report submitted by Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh who claims to have been appointed as Enquiry Officer by the District Inspector of Schools. Mahendra Pratap Singh who claims to have been appointed as Enquiry Officer by the District Inspector of Schools. It is his submission that the enquiry report is false and frivolous and infact no inspection was carried out on 15th October, 2009 as holiday had been declared. He has also produced before the Court the Register of Class IX which contains the names of 228 students. He has, therefore, submitted that a direction should be given to the District Inspector of Schools to issue the Registration Forms as the requisite fees had been deposited. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has, however, submitted that inspection was made on 15th October, 2009 by Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh in three Institutions including the petitioners' Institution and it was found that the Attendance Registers contained the names of only 37 students in Class IX and 56 students of Class X but actually only 9 and 13 students respectively were present at the time of inspection. He submitted that the report also mentions that no other Attendance Register was produced by the Institution and though recognition was granted to the School upto the High School level only, but students were also studying in Class XI and X11. He has further submitted that the Attendance Registers produced by the Principal of the Institution on the said date contained his signature and seal, but the Attendance Registers which have now been produced by the Committee of Management of the Institution before the Court do not contain the signatures and seal. He has also stated that though the Attendance Register of Class X are with the Institution since the students were studying but the f Attendance Registers of Class XI and XII had taken by Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh since these classes were unauthorizedly running. These Registers contain the seal and signatures of Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh and the names of the students. It is, therefore, his contention that the claim of the petitioners for issuing the Registration Forms for the session 2009-10 is totally without any basis as on 15th October, 2009 there were only 37 students on the rolls of the Institution. 9. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 10. It is, therefore, his contention that the claim of the petitioners for issuing the Registration Forms for the session 2009-10 is totally without any basis as on 15th October, 2009 there were only 37 students on the rolls of the Institution. 9. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 10. The Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. has made it necessary for registration of Class IX students so that the Institutions do not submit the Examination Forms of the High School Examination of those students who have actually not studied in the Institution. The Registration Forms are to be issued to only bonafide students of Class IX and it is for this purpose that the District Inspector of Schools had sent the communication to the Institution to submit the fees and obtain the Registration Forms but as doubts had arisen in respect of three Institutions regarding the number of students actually studying in Class IX, the District Inspector of Schools had deputed the Principal of the Government Inter College, Muzaffar Nagar to make an inspection in three Institutions. Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh has filed his own affidavit pursuant to the direction issued by this Court and he also appeared before the Court on 10th February, 2010 when this petition was heard. Learned Standing Counsel has also produced the three Registers of Class XI and XII which had taken by Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh at the time of inspection. The Attendance Register of Class XII shows that the attendance had been marked upto 14th October, 2009 whereas the Attendance Register of Class XI shows that the attendance had been marked upto 15th October, 2009. 11. The case of the petitioner-Institution, however, is that infact no inspection was carried out on 15th October, 2009 by Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh and 228 students had actually been enrolled in Class IX in July 2009. In support of this plea, the Institution has produced the Attendance Registers which show that there were 228 students. The case of the respondents is that these Registers have been subsequently prepared and the actual Registers on which Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh had signed and put the seal and which were retained by the Institution since students were studying in Class IX have not been produced. According to the respondents, Registers of Class XI and XII had been taken by Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh had signed and put the seal and which were retained by the Institution since students were studying in Class IX have not been produced. According to the respondents, Registers of Class XI and XII had been taken by Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh since students of Class XI and XII could not have been admitted as the Institution was recognised upto the High School Level only. Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh who had appeared before the Court also informed the Court that he had made the inspection on 15th October, 2009 and repeated what had been stated by him in the affidavit filed by him. 12. The issue is as to which version should be accepted. Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh states that the inspection was carried out on 15th October, 2009 and the report was submitted by him. The Institution has stated that Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh did not make any inspection and nor was he deputed to inspect the Institution. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools states that Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh had been deputed and he had been carried out inspection in three Institutions as is clear from the report. The fact that no malafides have been alleged against Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh who is the Principal of the Government Inter College and the fact that the Attendance Registers of Class XI and XII of the Institution have been produced do persuade the Court to accept the version of Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh. The case of the respondents is solely based on the Registers produced in the Court which shows that 228 students were enrolled in July 2009 but these Registers could have been prepared subsequently because in case if they were actually existing on 15th October, 2009, the Principal of the Institution would have been shown these Registers to Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh. There is no good reason to hold that inspection was carried out by Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh on 15th October, 2009. It is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioners that 15th October, 2009 was declared as a holiday since the Attendance Register of Class XI shows that attendance was marked for 15th October, 2009. 13. The petitioners have failed to substantiate the claim that 228 students had been admitted in the Institution in Class IX. No relief, therefore, can be granted to the petitioners. 13. The petitioners have failed to substantiate the claim that 228 students had been admitted in the Institution in Class IX. No relief, therefore, can be granted to the petitioners. It will, however, be for the Board to examine as to for how many candidates the Registration Forms for Class IX students can be issued. 14. The writ petition is dismissed subject to the aforesaid observations.