- (1.) THE petitioner Sunil Kumar Jain had appeared at the Intermediate Exa mination of 1971 conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. (hereinafter called the Board). His result was withheld. Subsequently an en quiry committee was set up and the peti tioner was served with a questionnaire. One of the questions was as to how he had solved the equation 53. 5 x 46/1000 and got the result 2.461 without doing rough calcu lation. The petitioner's explanation was that he was in the habit of doing the rough cal culation work on his palm or on the desk. This explanation was not accepted by the examinations committee and a report was made to the Board that the petitioner was guilty of using unfair means at the exami nation. On this report the Board cancelled the examination. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Peti tion.
(2.) IN the petition it has been assert ed that the rough calculation work has been done on the palm or on the desk. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that this explanation was not accepted as it was against the instructions printed on the back of the admission card and on the answer book. Learned Standing Counsel has not been able to point out any instruction either on the admission card or on the answer book which prohibits the use of the palm or the desk for rough calculation work. Hence the very foundation for the infer ence drawn by the committee is missing. Even if there were such instructions and the petitioner had violated them, he could be punished only for violation of the same if there were a provision for such punishment. 'Using of unfair means' has a nexus with the employment of prohibited material and the taking help of an outside agency. If the candidate had, applying his own mind, made calculations on the desk or on the palm he cannot be said to have used unfair means. Even if the explanation of the petitioner is not accepted as correct, there was no material before the examinations committee to come to the conclusion that the candidate had used unfair means. The equation is a very simple one and required just two steps of multiplication to arrive at the result. It is not denied that the petitioner had obained a First Class in the High School with distinction in Mathematics. For such a student this simple equation was not at all difficult to solve. The inference drawn by the examinations committee is thus unwarranted and is not based on any material on record. The Board had therefore no authority to withhold the result of the petitioner.
(3.) THE Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The order of the Board cancelling the petitioner's examination is quashed. Let a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued to the Board directing it to declare the re sult of the petitioner's examination of 1971. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs. Petition allowed.;