Satish Chandra, C.J. - (1.) Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, we are satisfied that in the special circumstances governing this case, the punishment imposed appears to us to be inappropriate.
(2.) The petitioner appears to have been caught using unfair means at the High School Examination of 1981. After giving the usual show-cause notice and examining the matter, the examination committee recommended and, ultimately, the Board passed the order of punishment whereby the 1981 examination of the petitioner has been cancelled and it has further been directed that the petitioner "should not be given permission to appear at the 1982 examination".
(3.) It is not disputed that in the ordinary course the petitioner filled up his form for the 1982 High School Examination and, in due course, the Board granted him the permission and gave him the usual admission card. The petitioner duly appeared at the examination of 1982. Near about June 1982 the results were declared in the normal course but the petitioners result was withheld. The impugned order does not authorise the Board to withhold the result of the petitioner. In our opinion, the later part of the punishment imposed by the impugned order, namely, that the petitioner may not be given permission to appear at the 1982 examination, has in the special circumstance of the case, become infructuous and could not at this stage be enforced.;