R.K. Agarwal, J. - (1.) SUSHIL Kumar Mishra petitioner, has filed this petition seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 24th January, 1997, passed by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad, respondent No. 1 (contained in Annexure 5 to the writ petition) whereby the result of the petitioner for the Intermediate Examination of the year 1996 has been cancelled. The petitioner had appeared in the Intermediate Examination in the year 1996 conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad. He was allotted roll No. 10907. His centre for examination was Chaharvati Inter College, District Agra. A provisional mark -sheet has been issued by the respondent No. 1 in which the petitioner has been shown to have obtained 285 marks out of 500 i.e. 57% but, his result was withheld on the ground that in English 2nd Paper he has indulged in copying while attempting to give answer to question No. 6 of the question paper concerned.
(2.) THE learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has produced the answer book of the petitioner in regard to second paper of the English as well as the answer book of a candidate bearing roll No. 10894 from which it is alleged that the petitioner had copied while attempting to answer question No. 6. The question No. 6 is for writing a letter to the friend on the relevant subject mentioned therein. I have perused the two answer books which show that there are some differences in the letter written by the petitioner from the letter written by the candidate bearing roll No. 10894 and as such it cannot be said that the petitioner had indulged in copying while attempting question No. 6. It is not the case of the respondents that any incriminating material was found from the possession of the petitioner at the time of examination or the petitioner was found, as a matter of fact, copying from any document or paper or any other material. Merely because there is some similarity in the answer given by the petitioner to question No. 6 with that given by the other examinee, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner has copied the same from such person. It may be that the petitioner and other examinee have learnt from the same letter writing book having same matter which in itself cannot be a ground to hold that the petitioner had indulged in copying. In the reply submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner had specifically mentioned that he had learnt the letter by heart and had written it by himself. The allegation of mass copying having not been established, the impugned order in this petition is not sustainable. In view of above discussions, the order dated 24th January, 1997 passed by the respondent No. 1 (contained in annexure 5 to the writ petition), in so far as it relates to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondent No. 1 is directed to issue a fresh marks -sheet to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it. There shall no order as to costs.;