- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to3.
(2.) BY means of the present petitioi under Article 226 of the Constitution o India, the petitioner prays for a writ, orde or direction in the nature ofcertiorari quash ing the impugned order dated 7-2-1996 w here by the result of the petitioner of B. . A Part-II Examination, 1995 has been can celled and he has further been debarred from appearing in the Examination 1996. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner has actually used the unauthorised material, which is alleged to have been recovered from his possession. This Court directed the respondents to produce the record of the case. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents today at the time of hearing produced the record of the case.
(3.) IT is correct that from the record i. e. the admit card, it is apparent that something has been written by pencil on the back of it but the writing is not legible. The expert, who has examined the unauthorised material, i. e. admit card, has reported that the part of the said writing was utilised by the petitioner in solving the question No. 6. However, it has not been specified that what part of the said unauthorised material was utilised by the petitioner. I have perused the admit card in question as well as answer books of the petitioner. To me the said material does not appear to have been utilised by the petitioner in solving the question No. 6. However, the unauthorised material has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner in the examination hall itself. Therefore, the provisions of the Ordinances on the use of Unfairmeans and Causing Dis turbances in Examination are attracted in the present case.;