- (1.) The petitioner's result was cancelled for adopting unfair means in the examination hall during the 1990 High School examination. The petitioner alleges that the authorities had cancelled the result on the ground that he had copied from the answer book of two other students, according to him, who were sitting in a different room than that in which the petitioner was sitting. He also alleges that he was not given proper opportunity. He further contends that even the finding appears to be perverse, therefore, his result should be declared.
(2.) Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner was given proper opportunity in the process and the authorities had found that he had adopted unfair means. This being a finding of fact, this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction should not interfere with the same. Whether the petitioner was sitting in one room and the co-students were sitting in another room cannot be ascertained by this Court. But it appears from the record itself that question No. 3(b) of English Paper II was answered bythree studens which depicted some kind of mistake and word by word they were similar. This being a finding of fact, on the basis where of the authorities having arrived at objective satisfaction, this Court cannot intervene.
(3.) Shri Pratap Narain Gangwar, learned counsel for the petitioner however contended that by order dated 1-9-1-1992, the learned Standing Counsel was directed to produce the records in respect of other two co-students and obtain instruction as to whether the result of those students are cancelled or not but learned standing counsel did neither produce the record nor sought instruction. Therefore, in the absence of documents or production of record, or instruction this Court should draw adverse inference and declare the result of the petitioner.;