V. K. Khanna, J. - (1.) Petitioner appeared in Intermediate Examination as private candidate from Lal Bahadur Sashtri Intermediate College, Chail, District Allahabab, in the year 1984-85 bearing Roll Number 626781. The result of the petitioner was, however, not declared, and it was kept in the category of those candidates whose result were withheld by the Board. Ultimately the petitioner's examination was cancelled, and it is this action of the Board which has been challenged in this Writ Petition.
(2.) At the admission stage we have heard learned Standing Counsel also and the present Writ Petition is being disposed of finally in accordance with the Rules of the Court.
(3.) It may be noticed that the Writ Petition No. 2805 of 1986 published in (1989) 2 UPLBEC 226 was filed by Suni Kumar who was similarly placed as the petitioner in the Present writ petition, and the charge against him was that the answers given by him were similar to the answers given by the candidate bearing Roll No. 626781 (Petitioner in this case). Learned Counsel for the respondents has made a statement that the answers of the petitioner have been weeded but and cannot be produced. Writ Petition No. 2805 of 1986 published in (1989) 2 UPLBEC 226 has been finally decided, copy of the judgment has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition. A bare perusal of the judgment would show that the Bench had perused the copies of the petitioner as well as of Sunil Kumar in Writ Petition No. 2805 of 1986, (supra) and recorded a finding to the following effect: "Result of Intermediate Examination of 1984-85 of petitioner was cancelled as he was charged having used unfair means in answering question No. 5(A) of English 2nd paper. It was alleged that the answers given by the petitioner were similar to the answers given by candidate bearing Roll. No. 626781. In order to verify if the finding recorded by the Examination Committee is well founded learned Standing Counsel was directed to produced answer books of that two candidates They have been perused by us. Although it is claimed that the order cancelling result has been passed without affording any opportunity but that appears to be incorrect as on 10-9-1985 the petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge-sheet given by the opposite parties. But from the answer books it appears that even though there is similarity in some of the words used by the two candidates yet there are certain vital differences which lead us to believe that the finding recorded by the Examination Committee was based on mere suspicion.";