- (1.) On 24.5.1985 this court required the respondent to file a counter - affidavit by 15lh July, 1985 No, counter - affidavit has been filed as yet in this petition and in the connected writ petition of Km. Manju Pathak.
(2.) We have heard the counsel for the parties and we are disposing of the writ petition at the admission stage itself in accordance with the rules of the Court. The petitioner appeared in the 1983 High School Examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. The petitioner's result was withheld. A Charge - sheet was issued to the petitioner calling upon her to show cause as to way her examination be not cancelled on account of having used unfair means in the examination. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice refuting the charges and also appeared before the sub - Committee constituted by the Board for purposes of enquiry on October 12, 1983. Thereafter, the petitioners result was declared and she was shown to have passed the examination. Again on 5.6.1984 the Board of High School and Intermediate Eduction issued the impugned notice to the petitioner calling upon her to explain why proceedings be not taken against her for using unfairmeans in the High School Examination 1983. Aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged validity of the notice by means of this petition.
(3.) The petitioner filed the present writ petition and questioned the right of the respondent to issue second show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner has asserted that reply to the first show cause notice was satisfactory and the committee which held enquiry appears to have; been satisfied with the petitioners explanation and she was absolved of the charge and her result was declared. Now, the second show - cause notice was not justified. Since no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent the petitioner's assertion in this respect remained un - controverted. It is, thus, clear that the respondent was satisfied that the petitioner had not used any unfair means. The Board has further failed is show any reason for issue of a second show cause notice. Precisely, in similar circumstances three Division Benches of this court have taken the view that it is not open to the Board of High School and Intermediate Education to issue second show cause notice or to punish the student on second show cause notice. Reference may be made to the case of (Km.) Shalini Rastogi v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. (1985 U.P. Local Bodies and Educational Cases 104) and Kutnari Pratihha Tandon v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. (Writ Petition No. 4332 of 1986 decided on 1.5.1988) and again Mrs. Kusum Lata v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education (Writ Petition No. 1783 of 1985 decided on August 16, 1985). In all these cases notice was quashed. Following the aforementioned cases which are binding on us are held that the impugned notice dated 5th June, 1984 is illegal and is liable to be quashed.;