ORDER : The petitioner has called into question the endorsement, dated 19.7.2010 (Annexure-E) issued by the Block Education Officer to the effect that no information is available about the genuineness of the petitioner’s marks card of the VII standard. She has also sought a direction to the respondent No.3 to consider appointing the petitioner for the post of Peon based on the statement of marks at Annexure-C. 2. Sri Manohar N, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s marks card at Annexure-C is correct and genuine. It is even confirmed by the Head Master, as is evident from the certificate at Annexure-G. Now the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Peon is denied on the ground that no records are available. 3. Sri M.A. Subramani, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that the petitioner’s claim to appointment is based on the forged marks card. He submits that a copy of the petitioner’s correct statement of marks is produced as AnenxureR1. As per Annexure-R1, she has secured 70.3%; she spuriously claims to have secured 96.2% as per the forged marks card at Annexure-C. He submits that the marks card produced by the petitioner for admission to VIII standard also shows that she has secured 70.3%. 4. Whether Annexure-C is a genuine marks card or Annexure-R1 is a genuine marks card requires a fact finding enquiry. No finding can be returned on such factual controversy in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore keeping all the contentions open and reserving the liberty to the petitioner to avail of the remedy of filing a duly constituted suit, this petition is rejected. No order as to costs.