- (1.) R. K. Agarwal, J. The petitioner appeared in the Intermediate Examina tion 1997 conducted by Madhya Shish Paris had U. P. Allahabad. He was al lotted Roll No. 926859. He appeared as a private candidate from Saturn Inter Col lege, Aligarh. The petitioner had offered General Hindi, Physics, Chemistry, English and Mathematics as his subject in the Intermediate Examination. The Madhya Shiksha Parishad U. P. Allahabad withheld the result of the petitioner under category of 'w. B. ' which connotes mass copying as per the communication made by the letter dated 20-10-97. The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Committee and submitted that he has not copied nor used any unfair means for solving his Mathe matics paper. The only ground on which the result of the petitioner has been cancelled by the Enquiry committee is that in respect of one question the petitioner has not calcu lated on the rough sheet and there is similarity in the answer with respect to another candidate.
(2.) I have heard Sri Vishnu Gupta assisted by Sri R. O. P. S. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Mehrotra, learned Standing Counsel. Sri Anil Mehrotra has produced before me the answer book of Mathematics-I, paper in respect of which the allegation of mass copying has been made against the petitioner. I have perused the answer given by the petitioner in respect of ques tion No. 6-C. 1 have also perused the answer book of the other candidate bear ing Roll No. 926821 in respect of which it is alleged that the petitioner had copied from the said answer book. Though there is similarity in two answers by the allega tion of mass copying is not established. It is admitted to the respondents that no in criminating material was found from the possession of the petitioner at the time of examination nor the petitioner was found as a matter of fact copying from any docu ment or paper on this score. It is quite possible that the petitioner may have learnt by heart the tables and had answer the question on its own. Simply because there is similarity in the answer of two candidates will not amount to using unfair means so as to entitle the Respondent No. 1 to cancel the result of the petitioner. . Thus, the order of cancellation passed by Respondent No. 1 is based upon wholly irrelevant materials and facts and cannot be sustained. The letter dated 20-10-97 by which the result of the petitioner is cancelled is hereby quashed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to issue a fresh mark sheet to the petitionci within a month of production of a certified copy of this order before him. In the result the writ petition suc ceeds and is allowed. Petition allowed. .;