ORDER : Alok Sharma, J. The petitioner Bandhu Public Senior Secondary School Khatu Shyamji (hereinafter `the School') is aggrieved of the order dated 16-6-2015 passed by the Director Secondary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner, (hereinafter `the Director') and the affirming order dated 15-7-2015 passed by the Appellate Authority cum Special Secretary to the Government Education Department (hereinafter `the Appellate Authority') whereby its up gradation to Secondary and Senior Secondary level was suspended for the academic sessions 2015-16 and 2016-17. The background to the petition is as under:- 2. The petitioner school is being run by Bandhu Public School Society, Khatu Shyamji District Sikar (hereinafter `the Society'). Mool Chand Mawaliya is the Secretary both of the Society and the School. A news item came to be published in the vernacular press that one Suresh Kumar Mawaliya, Vice President of the Society and an employee of the school, one Panne Singh Chauhan, Lecturer (Geography) had been accused in FIR (No.77/2015, Police Station Sarada District Udaipur on 24-4-2015) at the instance of an Examiner of the Board of Secondary Education on the allegation that they sought to bribe the Examiner for marking students of the school on the higher side and had threatened him on his refusal to do so. Following the news item published in the newspaper, an enquiry was initiated by the District Education Officers (Secondary) Sikar and the Additional District Education Officer (Secondary) Sikar. On their visit to the school on 29-4-2015, the Principal of the school refused to provide the relevant record of the school mandated to be maintained under the Non Government Educational Institution Act, 1989 (hereinafter `the Act of 1989') and Non Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993 (hereinafter `the Rules of 1993') on the ground that the record was locked in a room in the school premises key whereof was with the Secretary of the Society, who was then allegedly travelling. A show cause notice was issued to the school on 1-5-2015 by the Director, Secondary Education Bikaner to the school. Explanation thereto dated 7-5-2015 was found unsatisfactory. On consideration of the matter, the Director decided to suspend the School's up gradation upto Secondary/ Senior Secondary level for two academic years i.e. 2015-16 and 2016-17 by the impugned order dated 16-6-2015. As stated above, the said order was affirmed in appeal on 15-7-2015 passed by the Appellate Authority. 3. Mr. Explanation thereto dated 7-5-2015 was found unsatisfactory. On consideration of the matter, the Director decided to suspend the School's up gradation upto Secondary/ Senior Secondary level for two academic years i.e. 2015-16 and 2016-17 by the impugned order dated 16-6-2015. As stated above, the said order was affirmed in appeal on 15-7-2015 passed by the Appellate Authority. 3. Mr. Lokesh Sharma, appearing for the school has submitted that the order dated 16-6-2015 is arbitrary, and vitiated by non application of mind. It was submitted that the illegality of the order passed by the Director, has been compounded by the cursory order dated 15-7-2015 passed by the Appellate Authority without considering the grounds of appeal. It was submitted that the impugned orders are also vitiated for being based on the fact of FIR No.77/2015, dated 24-4-2015 being registered at Police Station Sarada, District Udaipur for offences under sections 420, 384 and 120B IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair means) Act, 1992 against the Vice President of the Society and an employee of the school. It was submitted that the aforesaid FIR was not a part of the show cause notice, yet the final order on the show cause notice, subsequent to filing reply, was founded thereon. Reference to the FIR in the impugned order dated 16-6-2015 was thus extraneous to the show cause notice making the said order liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that even otherwise the act of the Vice President of the society, which runs the school, and that of a lecturer of the school in prima facie seeking to bribe an examiner of the Board for the benefit of students of the school and threatening him on failure to do so, does not attach to the society and the school. It was submitted that unless law provides so, vicarious liability for criminal acts can not be attributed to another. And in fact neither the Society nor the school has been arrayed as an accused in FIR No.77/2015 at Police Station Sarada. The impugned order dated 16-6-2015 as affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 15-7-2015 are thus vitiated for failure to distinguish a member of the society which is an independent body corporate from its delinquent member. And in fact neither the Society nor the school has been arrayed as an accused in FIR No.77/2015 at Police Station Sarada. The impugned order dated 16-6-2015 as affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 15-7-2015 are thus vitiated for failure to distinguish a member of the society which is an independent body corporate from its delinquent member. Similarly an employee of the school cannot be equated with the school itself to justify disciplinary/ punitive action against it for an authorised criminal act of such employee. It was submitted that aside of the misdirection above, for the allegations in the show cause notice, no deficiency was made out in respect of running of the school. All records required to be maintained by the school in terms of the Rules of 1993 were submitted to the Director Secondary Education Bikaner on 29-5-2015 pursuant to the show cause notice dated 1-5-2015. Consequently the impugned order dated 16-6-2015 as also the affirming order dated 15-7-2015 are liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, Mr. S.K. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that following the registration of the FIR No.77/2015, at Police Station Sarada District Udaipur on 24-4-2015, the seriousness of the matter entailed commencement of an enquiry against the petitioner school. Following an immediate inspection in which requisite documents were denied by the school, show cause notice was issued on 1-5-2015 and on receipt of reply thereto various irregularities were found to have been committed by the school. Record as mandated by the Rules of 1993 was not found being maintained by the school in the custody of the Principal. In fact, in the reply to show cause notice dated 1-5-2015 the petitioner school itself admitted to the factum of several discrepancies in maintaining the school record as warranted under the Rules of 1993. The discrepancies found in the enquiry based on the record furnished by the school were:- (i) Record of internal marking/ gradation of students of the school as required under the Rules of 1993 was not in the possession and control of the Principal and he did not produce the same when required in the course of inspection on the ground that the same was in a room in the school in possession of the Director of the Society who had the key thereof but was out of station. (ii) On subsequent scrutiny of registers of previous years required to be maintained under the Rules of 1993 it was found that they recorded only Sessional marks and marks of the final examination conducted by the Board. Sessional marks were not based on internal tests or half yearly examinations, project work, attendance and conduct of students during the course of the academic year. These discrepancies were in violation of the provisions of the Rules of 1993. In the circumstances, the Director, Secondary Education Bikaner invoking his power under Section 7(2) of the Rules of 1993 suspended the petitioner's registration for Secondary and Senior Secondary for the academic year 2015-16 and 2016-17 vide order dated 16-6-2015, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 15-7-2015. 5. Mr. Gupta submitted that aside of irregularities in maintaining the records at the school, as required to be maintained in terms of Rules of 1993, the registration of FIR against the Vice Principal of the Society and a lecturer of the school, is an extremely serious matter in which they were arrested and granted bail. The school itself prima facie found then guilty of misconduct and removed the Vice Principal Suresh Kumar Mawaliya from the Board of Directors of the Society. That is the admission of the Society about the Vice Principal's misconduct. The aforesaid accused clearly made an attempt to tamper with the evaluation of students of the school at the Board examination. It was submitted that albeit criminal liability prima facie may be limited to the accused, yet the misconduct attaches to the Society/ school also. It was submitted that it is inconceivable that the Vice President of the Society and a lecturer of Geography at the school would act together in their individual capacities for their own personal benefits in approaching an examiner of the Board to whom answer-sheets of the students of the petitioner school had been sent by the Board for evaluation, without the intent of any reputational benefit to the school flowing from the performance of its students. He submitted that were the school's students placed in the Board's merit list with their spiked marks, the school would have been thus obviously beneficiary in attracting more students in future years. He submitted that were the school's students placed in the Board's merit list with their spiked marks, the school would have been thus obviously beneficiary in attracting more students in future years. It was submitted that tampering with the evaluation system at Board's examinations is a most serious offence cutting at the roots of the education system itself, to national detriment, and in fact a lenient view has been taken by the Director, Secondary Education Bikaner by only suspending the School's up gradation to Secondary and Senior Secondary level for two academic years 2015-16 and 2016-17, when in fact the School ought to have been disaffiliated, Mr. Gupta submitted that the mischief as enormous as was attempted has to be nipped in the bud if educational standard in the state of Rajasthan are not to go down to the level that obtains in some other states such as the one where a Board topper on being required to re-write the Board Examination following complaints of wrongdoing remained absent. Heard. Considered. 6. The jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a matter of course, but purely discretionary. The Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu [ (1994)2 SCC 481 ] held that no writ should issue in the exercise of extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when such a writ/ order/ direction would be against the Society's interest. Similarly in the case of M/s. Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd. [ AIR 2005 SC 2299 ], albeit in the context of a contractual matter, the Apex Court held that while issuing a writ in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the constitution of India it has to be seen by the court as to whether its order would be in furtherance of public interest. 7. Underlying the case at hand is the criminal conspiracy by the Vice President of the Society and a Lecturer of a School run by the Society to bribe under threat of physical harm, an Examiner of the Board in an attempt to seek higher marks for the school's students and consequent fame for the school-as the resultant popularity of the school with students in the merit list would lead to inevitable monetary benefits for the school with more admissions. FIR No.77/2015, was registered at Police Station Sarada District Udaipur on 24-4-2015 wherein the secrecy in the evaluation in the Examination by the Board of Secondary Education was attempted to be compromised by those in authority at the school. The doctrine of identification provides that acts of a person or persons who hold high level of authority in a body corporate/ corporation/ company be attributed to the body corporate/ corporation or the company itself. Law regards such persons with high authority as having acted for the benefit of the organisation they represent as they are held to be the minds and souls of their organization-inanimate in themselves and only acting through their officials with high authority. The identification principle was developed solely to attribute the actions and knowledge of the agents of a body corporate/ corporation and company to such entities. Similar would be the conclusion on the "attribution theory". In the case of Indian Bank v. Godhara Nagrik Cooperative Credit Society Limited [ (2008)12 SCC 541 ] the Apex Court held thus:- "19. The alter ego approach adopted in the theory of corporate liability which has been applied by the House of Lords in Lennar's Carrying Co. Ltd. v. Asiatic Petroleum Co. Ltd. [1915 AC 705] is one such instance. The facts of the case concerned a cargo claim which Lennard's sought to defend by contending that Section 502 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 exonerated the owner from losses arising without his actual fault. The House of Lords held that they could not rely on that defence since the fault of the appropriate organ such as the Board of Directors or Managing Director could be attributed to the company. 20. In Farrar's Company Law, 4th Edn.p.147 it is stated "An employee who acts for the company in the course of his or her employment will usually bind the company and his or her knowledge will be attributed to the company because he or she is the company for the purpose of the transaction in question. This is so even if the employee is acting dishonestly or against the interests of the company or contrary to orders but it is not so where the company is the victim. This is to avoid an obvious contradiction." 21. This is so even if the employee is acting dishonestly or against the interests of the company or contrary to orders but it is not so where the company is the victim. This is to avoid an obvious contradiction." 21. Another instance of the application of theory of corporate liability is the "attribution approach" as adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd. v. Securities Commission [(1995)2 AC 500]. In that case, two employees of Meridian, had improperly used their authority to purchase in the name of the company a substantial interest in Euro-National Corpn. Ltd., a New Zealand listed company. Under the New Zealand Securities Amendment Act, 1988, Meridian was required to give notice of its acquisition to ENC and the Stock Exchange. The two employees knew this but the Board and the Managing Director of the Meridian did not. No notice was given. The Privy Council upheld the New Zealand Court's decision holding that Meridian had contravened the law, on the premise that the knowledge of the employee would be attributed to Meridian." 8. In the present case it is inconceivable that the Vice Principal of the society with an employee of the school Panne Singh Chauhan lecturer in (Geography) would be working independently and for his own and his cohort's benefit alone. It would be important to record that the Vice President of society Suresh Kumar Mawaliya, is none other than the son of the Secretary of the Society Mool Chand Mawaliya. The whole attempt of the accused in attempting to bribe the Examiner of the Board was fundamentally to benefit the school with recognition and fame flowing from its students getting high marks from tampering with the evaluation process and potentially find place in the merit list of the Board. The facts of the case have on ominous similarity with another State school Board in the country where the topper depressingly stated that she was taught cooking in political science classes. 9. The argument based on denial of natural justice in the factum of the FIR being included in the impugned order dated 16-6-2015 is vacuous in the facts of the case. The Society which runs the school has itself removed its Vice Principal, Suresh Kumar Mawaliya obviously for reason of his wrongdoing. 9. The argument based on denial of natural justice in the factum of the FIR being included in the impugned order dated 16-6-2015 is vacuous in the facts of the case. The Society which runs the school has itself removed its Vice Principal, Suresh Kumar Mawaliya obviously for reason of his wrongdoing. A contrary argument of his innocence could not have been made even if required to specifically in the show cause notice. The consequence of Suresh Kumar Mawaliya's wrongdoing for the Society on the doctrine of identification and "attribution theory" has been already adverted to. Principles of natural justice are not strait jacket and non compliance therewith even if established does not automatically vitiate the order impugned on that ground. Prejudice has to be established. That cannot be done in the facts of the present case. Consequently the argument of counsel for the petitioner based on contravention of principles of natural justice vitiating the impugned order dated 16-6-2015 and affirming order dated 15-7-2015 is therefore not tenable. 10. I am therefore of the considered view that albeit FIR No.77/2015, registered at Police Station Sarada District Udaipur on 24-4-2015 has been referred to in the impugned order dated 16-6-2015 without being a part of the show cause notice dated 1-5-2015, this by itself should not in the special circumstances of the case vitiate the order passed by the Director, Secondary Education, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Aside of the aforesaid, a perusal of the impugned order dated 16-6-2015 indicates that the school also inter alia on its own reply has been found in contravention of its multiple obligations as mandated in Rules of 1993 such as lack of internal marking/ gradation of students through tests, half yearly examinations, project work, attendance and conduct, yet marking students to the highest marks in the Session. Register maintained by the school recorded only Sessional marks and marks awarded by the Board. Further the Principal of the School was not in possession of records of the school when it was inspected on 29-4-2015 as he was required to be under the Rules of 1993. 11. Consequently, I am of the considered view that no case for exercise of the equitable extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this court is made out. The petition is without force. Dismissed.