Yashoda Nandan, S.J.Hyder, JJ. - (1.) Petitioner appeared at the High School Examination ana he was assigned Roll No. 783735. This was in respect of the examination held in the year 19a0. The result of the petitioner was withheld and he was ultimately required to face an enquiry. The charge against him was that he had used unfair means of the examination and that the answer given by him in reply to question no. 9 kg of general Mathematics 1st Paper was identical with the answers given by other examinees having Roll Nos. 733731, 783736 and 783737. It was also ailed that the answer given by the petitioner contained Similar mistakes as the answers of the three other candidates who appeared at the examination from the centre. An enquiry was held by the Screening Committee. The petitioner denied the charge against him and he stated that he had answered question No. 9 ka according to his own understanding and that he did not use any unfair means in collusion with the three other candidates. Respondents did not accept the explanation offered by the petitioner and cancelled his examination for the year 1980. Petitioner has filed this writ petition and he has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing respondents to declare his result and not to give effect to the order cancelling his examination.
(2.) We directed the standing Counsel to produce the answer books of the petitioner and also answer books of the three other candidates who were alleged to have been in collusion with the petitioner in using unfair means. The Standing Counsel produced all the tour answer books today and on comparisons of these answer books, we are of the opinion that it could not legitimately held that the answer given by the petitioner to question No. 9 ka was identical with the answers given by the three other candidates and that all the answers contained common mistakes. It may also be stated that use of the alleged unfair means by the petitioner was not detected by the Invigilator at the time of the examination but is said to have been discovered by the Examiner. Action against the petitioner was taken on the basis of the report made by the Examiner. In our opinion the adverse decision against the petitioner is based on suspicion and not on material evidence on record.
(3.) The result is that this writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Writ of mandamus is issued to respondent it to declare the result of the petitioner forthwith. The order cancelling his examination for the year 1980 is hereby quashed.;