H.N. Seth, J. - (1.) The Petitioner appeared in the Board's High School Examination for the year 1971 as a regular student of Public Inter College Raghupura, Bulandshahr. His result was withheld and subsequently he was informed that he was accused of having used unfair means in answering Science 1st paper. In due course a spot enquiry committee, appointed by the Examinations Committee, visited the Centre from which the Petitioner had' appeared. The Committee informed the Petitioner that it appeared that he had used unfair means in the examination as he had found out the square root of 45.5625 without making proper calculations. The Petitioner explained that at that time he did not remember the exact method for calculating the square root of 45.5625. He estimated that the square root would be near about of 6.6. Accordingly, he multiplied 6.6 by 6.6 and found that the product came to something less than 45.4625. Again he multiplied 6.85 by 6.85 and found that the product was a little more than 45.5625. He next tried the multiplication of 6.75 by 6.75 and found that the product came to exactly 45.5625. Accordingly, he wrote down the square root of that expression as 6.75. He did not use any unfair means in answering that question.
(2.) However, the explanation offered by the Petitioner was not accepted by the Examinations Committee, with the result it cancelled the Petitioner's High School Examination for the year 1971 and further debarred him from appearing in Board's High School Examination for the year 1972. Decision of the Board was communicated to the Petitioner by the Principal of the Public Inter College, Raghupura vide his letter, copy of which has been filed as Annexure A to the writ petition.
(3.) The Petitioner has now approached this Court for relief. He has taken a number of grounds for questioning the validity of the order punishing him. One of the objections is that there was absolutely no material before the Board on the' basis of which any inference could be drawn that in working out the square root of 45.5625 the Petitioner had used unfair means. The averments made in paragraph 13 of the petition indicate that the Petitioner had actually multiplied 6.6 by 6.6, 6.85 by 6.85 and 6.75 by 6.75 on the left hand page of his answer book. Respondents do not controvert the facts mentioned in paragraph 13 of the petition. Their case, however, is that the working on the left hand page of Petitioner's answer books did not show that he adopted a proper method for finding out the square root. All that the Petitioner could make out was that he made a guess. This showed that he had obtained the correct answer from some source other than a genuine source.;