V.K.Khanna, J. - (1.) The petitioner appeared in the High School Examination as a regular candidate in 1980 and was declared to have passed the aforesaid examination. Later on he was served with a show cause notice in which is was stated that he had used unfair means in Mathematics second paper and that be should appear before an Enquiry Committee on 26-2-1980. The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Committee and was informed that there were charges of using unfair means in solving question no. 10 Ka and 4 Ka. Petitioner denied having used unfair means and pleaded that the charge levelled against him were not correct. Principal petitioner of the College on 31-1-1981 informed the petitioner that the Secretary Board of High School and Intermediate Education has intimated that the petitioner's examination for the year 1980 has been cancelled because of bis using unfair means.
(2.) In the present writ petition the decision of the respondent no. 1 cancelling the result of the petitioner of the High School Examination of the year 1980 has been challenged on the ground that there was no evidence to substantiate the aforesaid charge and that the petition's result has been cancelled arbitrarily merely on surmises and conjectures. The Board of High School was given time to file a counter-affidavit Counter-affidavit was, however, not filed but the respondent-Board has produced before us the entire original record pertaining to the case of the petitioner.
(3.) We have gone through the record produced by the Board. On a perusal of the record we find that the charge against the petitioner was that while solving question no. 4 (ka) and 10 (ka) of Mathematics second paper, help from external source has been taken. It may be stated that the aforesaid charge was levelled on the basis of certain mistakes which had been committed by the petitioner in solving the aforesaid two questions. In the charge-sheet the precise charges, which have been mentioned are as follows:- (1) 4 (ka) chitr men oo Dahin hei uppatti likhi hei ? (2) 10 (ka) chitr men wa nahia hei. Ek asthaac par 3/15 ke aasthaan par 3/13 fikba hei. From the charge-sheet we find that the petitioner iD reply to the aforesaid charges has written an Explanation as follows ka aur kha kea leech men ocu hei. Sameiy kam tha ees liayea sbeghrta men 15 likha gayaa tathaa dashmalava wa cbitr men pa bendu hei tathaa eesmen deeyaa gayaa hei kee turnen aank chet sadhan prayaagh keeyaa hei menea naka) nahin ke tatha yeha aarop galnt hei. From the original record we find that-the opinion of the expert was also sought in connection with the charges levelled against the petitioner and in respect of question no. 4 ka could be cancelled as the students normally cram the theories. The expert however, was of the opinion that the charge levelled against the petitioner in respect of question do. 10 ka was proved to the hilt. From the original record it, therefore, becomes apparent that the petitioner's result has been conceded on the basis of the charge levelled against him in respect of question no. 10 (ka).;