JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. The appellants, in the writ proceedings before the learned Single Judge which ultimately resulted in an order of dismissal dated 10 October 2014, sought a direction for the declaration of their result of the Lekhpal Examination of 1989 and the issuance of a letter of appointment. 2. The eligibility of the appellants has been duly examined by the District Magistrate under a circular of the Board of Revenue dated 15 January 1988 and a decision has been taken to the effect that all Lekhpals, who had possessed work experience on the post of Lekhpal between 13 September 1976 and 1 June 1983, should be deputed for training for a period of one year. The District Magistrate in his report dated 10 June 2010 recorded that adequate opportunity was granted to the appellants to clarify the date on which they were selected as Lekhpal, when they were sent for training and since when they had worked on a temporary basis as Lekhpal. No documents were produced before the District Magistrate. Moreover, the Collector, Mainpuri, after making a due enquiry found that no such material was available in support of the contention of the appellants of their having worked between the relevant dates. Moreover, it was found that the case of the appellants was based on fabricated material. When the writ petition was filed, the appellants chose consciously not to adduce any documentary material in regard to the alleged claim of work experience. However, in a supplementary affidavit, reliance was sought to be placed on an alleged certificate of the Tehsildar, Mainpuri dated 19 September 1990. There was no justification for why this was not produced when the original writ petition was filed. But this technicality apart, the learned Single Judge has examined this aspect of the matter and has placed greater credence on the final report of the District Magistrate which was arrived at after evaluating all the facts and circumstances. Since the appellants had not duly established the fulfilment of the conditions under the circular of the Board of Revenue dated 15 January 1988, there was no merit in their writ petition which was justifiably rejected. 3. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.