JUDGMENT : S. Sarwar Ali, J. 1. These three writ applications were heard one after the other at the suggestion of the counsels for the petitioners, to which the counsel for respondents had no objection. Since some of the points are common to all these writ applications they are being disposed of by a common JUDGMENT :. The petitioners in C.W.J.C. 1516/70 and C.W.J.C. 1411/70 are students who had appeared at the B.Sc. final annual examination, 1969 of Bhagalpur University, which were held in August, 1969. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. 1518/70 is the father of a student, Chandrakant Misra (hereinafter referred to as Misra for sake of brevity) who also appeared in the said examination with Physics Honours. The result of all the students mentioned above were cancelled because in the opinion of the authorities they had used unfair means at the examination. 2. It may be convenient to give the general background leading to the initiation of proceedings directing the students to show cause as to why they should not be held to have used unfair means at the examination. As already stated, in August 1969 B.Sc. final examinations were held at various centres within Bhagalpur University. After the results of the various centres were tabulated they were placed before the Examination Board in the usual course. It appears that extra-ordinary high percentage of pass at certain centres and correspondingly low pass at some other centres induced the Examination Board to refer the matter to Honours Board of Moderators. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the contesting respondents (which shall be referred to as the affidavit of the University or University's affidavit) that at its meeting held on 3.2.1970 the Examination Board decided that the results in Mathematics, Botany, Geology and Chemistry should be referred to the Honours Board of Moderators in the aforesaid subjects. Thereafter the matter, it appears, was examined by the Academic Council, which on 20.2.1970 authorised the Vice-Chancellor to form Special Boards for each subject at B.Sc. final examination. The Special Boards having been constituted met on various dates and they reported the use of unfair means having been adopted by some of the candidates, details in respect whereof were given by the said Board. final examination. The Special Boards having been constituted met on various dates and they reported the use of unfair means having been adopted by some of the candidates, details in respect whereof were given by the said Board. The report of the Special Board was considered by the Academic Council on 5.4.1970 and the students concerned were directed to show cause as slated above. This is what has happened in the case of the students who are petitioners in the C.W.J.C. 1516 of 1970 and 1411 of 1970. In so far as initiation of proceedings against Misra (son of petitioner in C.W.J.C. 1518 of 1970) is concerned, the background is different and may now be stated. Misra had appeared at B.Sc. Honours examination in Physics. One of the papers was examined by Dr. P.L. Shrivastava, who submitted a report which was headed as "Report of Unfair Means B.Sc. Honours Physics Part I". In this he gave the centre and roll number of thirteen students, who according to him appeared to have used unfair means. Against roll number of each of the students remarks were given. The remark relating to Misra is "Q-2 and Sumno rough". This report was placed before the Boards of Moderators who, so far as Misra is concerned, agreed with the report made by the examiner, Dr. P.L. Srivastava. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to Misra. 3. In the preceding paragraph I have only given the general background leading to the circumstances in which notices were issued for showing cause as to why the students in question should not be held to have used unfair means at the examination. I will now give some more facts regarding each of the writ applications separately. Broad facts relating to C.W.J.C. 1516 of 1970 4. In this case there are two petitioners, Deonandan Tiwary and Syed Shahabuddin Ashraf. The notices issued to both of them are in similar terms and relate to two subjects, Botany and Chemistry. The notices state that it has been reported that the students in question had adopted unfair means in answering some questions in the papers mentioned in the notice and that they were being afforded opportunity to give their explanation and defence. It was further stated that the students could, if they so wished, appear in person before the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee. It was further stated that the students could, if they so wished, appear in person before the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee. In reply to these notices, which are Annexures 1, 2, 5, and 7 to the writ petition, the petitioners submitted their explanations. Their explanation was that they had answered all the questions without use of unfair means and on the basis of their knowledge and ability. It was further stated that the answers had been given from memory on the basis of class notes and other notes prepared with the help of text books. The two students appeared before the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee on various dates. According to the affidavit which has been filed on behalf of University, petitioner no. 1 appeared on 15-5-1970 and petitioner no. 2 on 12.5.1970 before the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee to answer the accusation against them in respect of Botany papers. The experts put questions to the petitioners "in respect of the answers in respect of which use of unfair means was alleged and also generally to test the knowledge of the petitioners" in the subject concerned. The conclusion of the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee was that in their opinion the petitioners could not satisfy them at the interview and test and that in their opinion they had used unfair means at the examination. In so far as Chemistry papers are concerned petitioner no. 1 appeared before Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee and Experts on 25.5.1970 and petitioner no. 2 on 23.5.70. According to the affidavit of the University questions were put to the petitioners "in respect of questions in respect of which they were alleged to have used unfair means, and they were questioned generally also. Answer books were shown to them and they were asked to explain allegations of unfair means." The experts came to the conclusion that the petitioners did not have basic knowledge of Chemistry and as such they could not have answered the question by fair means. This report was placed before the Examination Board on 25.6.1970 which accepted it and the petitioners were debarred from appearing at any University examination prior to the annual examination of 1970. It may be stated here that in their reply to the counter affidavit, which has been sworn by petitioner no. 1, it has been stated that it is not correct to say that any question was put to petitioner no. It may be stated here that in their reply to the counter affidavit, which has been sworn by petitioner no. 1, it has been stated that it is not correct to say that any question was put to petitioner no. 1, the deponent, or to petitioner no. 2 with regard to answers in respect of which use of unfair means was alleged. It was further stated that all facts stated in the counter-affidavit of the University regarding "showing of answer books and giving the explanations concerning the same were after thought." It was also alleged that the opinion of experts that the petitioners did not have basic knowledge of Chemistry was not correct because the petitioners have already passed B.Sc. Part I examination. All this was stated in the affidavit filed on 2.12.1970 although the copy of the counter affidavit of the University was served on the learned counsel for the petitioners as early as 16.9.1970. Broad facts relating to C.W.J.C. 1411 of 1970. 5. In this application there are in all 19 petitioners. Petitioners 1 to 13 appeared from R.D.D.J. College, Monghyr, petitioners 14 to 18 from Sultan Ganj and petitioner no. 19 from Jamui. Show cause notices were issued in three subjects, namely, Mathematics, Chemistry and Physics. Since the three students against whom show cause notices were issued in Physics have been exonerated, it is only necessary to consider the cases of petitioners who are alleged to have used unfair means in Mathematics and Chemistry, I now mention some relevant facts in respect of petitioners 1 to 18, because the case of petitioner no. 19 is on a completely different footing. Notices were issued to petitioners 1 to 18 stating that they had adopted unfair means in answering some questions in the papers mentioned in the notice and that they should give their explanations by the date mentioned in the notice. They were also informed that they could appear before the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee, if they so wished, on the same date. In reply, some of the students made a general statement that they had not used unfair means and had answered questions from memory or from the notes prepared by them. Some of the students, however, also objected to the vagueness in the notice and said that in the absence of further particulars it was difficult to explain the charges. In reply, some of the students made a general statement that they had not used unfair means and had answered questions from memory or from the notes prepared by them. Some of the students, however, also objected to the vagueness in the notice and said that in the absence of further particulars it was difficult to explain the charges. They further reiterated that no unfair means had been used by them. All the eighteen petitioners appeared before the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee on various dates. The Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee was assisted by experts in the subjects concerned. According to the University's affidavit the experts "put questions in respect of the answers in respect of which allegations were made for use of unfair means and also questioned generally to test the knowledge in the subject concerned." In respect of all the petitioners the experts were of the view that the students lacked even elementary and basic knowledge in the concerned subject, and they were thus of the opinion that the answers written by them had been given by use of unfair means. The members of the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee, however, held that except for the petitioners 3, 5, 12 and 18, the rest should be given benefit of doubt in all the subjects concerned. The recommendation of the experts and the report of the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee were considered by the Examination Board on 13.6.1970 and it was of the opinion that the petitioners were guilty of using unfair means in the examination and consequently the Board debarred them from appearing at any University examination prior to annual examination of 1970. A copy of the resolution of the Examination Board is Annexure B to the University's affidavit. It only now remains to mention about the case of petitioner no. 19. A show cause notice was issued to him in respect of papers I and II of Botany. He gave explanation and appeared before the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee on 10.5.1970 and was able to satisfy them that no action need be taken against him. It also appears that another notice was sent to him in connection with use of unfair means in Chemistry. This notice, petitioner no. 19 states, was never received by him. He gave explanation and appeared before the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee on 10.5.1970 and was able to satisfy them that no action need be taken against him. It also appears that another notice was sent to him in connection with use of unfair means in Chemistry. This notice, petitioner no. 19 states, was never received by him. However, on coming to know from some of his class friends who had appeared before the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee on 22nd and 23rd of May, 1970 that his roll number was also called on that occasion, he wrote a letter to the Deputy Registrar, Bhagalpur University stating that he had not received any notice at all. It appears that the Scrutiny Committee had examined the matter in his absence and gave an adverse report which resulted in the Examination Board cancelling his result as stated earlier. This petitioner, therefore, challenges the ORDER :as having been passed without notice to him and therefore suffering from the basic requirement of the principles of natural justice. Broad facts relating to C.W.J.C. 1518 of 1970 6. This petition has been filed by Man Mohan Misra, the father of Chandra Kant Misra praying for quashing of the ORDER :of respondent nos. 1 to 9 dated 17.7.1970 cancelling the examination of petitioner's son and also for quashing the proceeding of the Special Board of Moderators which had, on revaluation of the examination papers, reduced the marks of some of the students including the petitioner's son. Misra has also filed an affidavit in this Court, reiterating the statements made in the petition. I have already indicated that on the basis of a report made by Dr. P.L. Shrivastava a notice was issued to Misra. The notice stated that since the student had given no rough work in the sum portion of question no. 2 of Physics Paper I, he should submit his explanation about the same, failing which it will be deemed that he had deliberately and knowingly used unfair means in the examination and action will be taken accordingly. Misra gave a reply stating therein that he had always done well in mathematics in all previo us examinations and that the sum was so easy and simple that it could be solved without any rough work, which he was prepared to do at any time. He also denied the use of unfair means in the examination. Misra gave a reply stating therein that he had always done well in mathematics in all previo us examinations and that the sum was so easy and simple that it could be solved without any rough work, which he was prepared to do at any time. He also denied the use of unfair means in the examination. Misra was directed to appear before the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee on 5.5.1970. He appeared on the said date before the said Committee, which was assisted by two experts who were teachers in Physics, Questions were put to Misra to test his knowledge of the subject and his performance was such that the members of the Committee not only found it to be satisfactory but observed, to quote their own language, that "he is very bright". It is stated in the writ petition that during the course of interview the member of Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee began to turn over the pages of the answer books and that it was discovered that there was some rough work in sum portion of question no. 2. It appears from the University's affidavit and Annexure C thereto that after this was pointed out, the Committee called Dr. P.L. Shrivastava who had made the report and who saw the answer book and said that the rough work was not there when he had examined the paper. It may be stated that it is not the University's case that the statement was given by Dr. Shrivastava in the presence of the student concerned, i.e. Misra--a fact to which I would advert later. The Committee was of the view that if the rough work was not there at all at the time when Dr. P.L. Shrivastava had examined the answer book, the necessary inference was that there has been an interpolation with the connivance of someone in the University office. The matter in their opinion deserved serious investigation. The Committee, therefore, recommended that the matter be referred to some handwriting expert to determine the life of rough work and the written answer so that they could arrive at a conclusion that the rough work was later worked out in collaboration with someone of the office. The matter in their opinion deserved serious investigation. The Committee, therefore, recommended that the matter be referred to some handwriting expert to determine the life of rough work and the written answer so that they could arrive at a conclusion that the rough work was later worked out in collaboration with someone of the office. They, however, observed that the boy had given a satisfactory performance of himself before the Committee and that he was "very bright", and further stated that the Examination Board should take this into consideration while taking a decision in the matter. In view of the suggestion made by the Committee, it appears the examination papers were sent to Shri Dharni Narayan, retired S.P. (C.I.D.) but after some reply from Shri Narayan the matter was not pursued further. The Examination Board considered this matter and came to the conclusion that the rough calculation in the answer book was an interpolation. On the basis of this conclusion it cancelled the examination of the petitioner and debarred him from appearing at any examination prior to Annual Examination, 1970. 7. I have already referred to the constitution of a Special Board by the Vice-Chancellor on the basis of the resolution of the Academic Council held on 21.2.1970. It appears that the Special Board on re-examination of the answer books not only reported that in its opinion there was use of unfair means in some cases, but it also revalued the papers resulting in marks being either increased or decreased. The writ petition states that as a result of revaluation there was deduction of marks of Misra in Mathematics and Chemistry by the Special Board. The petitioner contends that the deduction of marks was mala fide, arbitrary and illegal. As already stated, he prays that in declaring his result, the deduction should be excluded from consideration and that Misra should be declared to have passed the examination on the valuation of answer books as made before the aforesaid deduction. 8. I have given some of the facts relating to each of the writ applications but it would be necessary to refer to further facts as I am dealing with the submissions made either generally which, it is said, are applicable to all cases or in respect of submissions which have been made in each of these applications separately. Contentions of petitioners common to the writ petitions:-- 9. Contentions of petitioners common to the writ petitions:-- 9. I will now briefly mention the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners which may be applicable to all or more than one writ application. They may be summarised as follows; (a) The show cause notices given by the University are vague and indefinite and do not fulfill the requirements of the principles of natural justice. (b) The ORDER :of Examination Board, cancelling the result of the petitioners is without jurisdiction in as much as it is the Vice Chancellor alone who can pass such an ORDER :. (c) The appointment of the Special Board of Moderators by the Examination Board was not warranted by law. I now proceed to deal with each of these points stated above. 10. (a) Defects of notice:--This point arises in C.W.J.C. Nos. 1516 and 1411 of 1970 only. From the various annexures made to the writ applications it appears that the notices were in very general terms except, perhaps, in the case of petitioner Abhinandan Tiwary, petitioner no. 3, in C.W.J.C. 1411 of 1970. (The show cause notice as given to petitioner no. 3 has not been annexed to the writ application but the answer given by him is annexed as Annexure 8, which Annexure indicates that the petitioner aforesaid was referring to particular questions and his answers thereto). The show cause notices are practically of the same type and only one of them may be quoted: It has been reported that he had adopted unfair means in answering some question in Paper IInd of Chemistry at the B.Sc. (Final) Annual 1969 examination. If he has to say anything regarding the incident or in his defence, he may send his Explanation to the undersigned by 24.5.70. In addition if he wishes to appear in person to give further clarification he may appear before the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee on 24.5.1970 at his own cost. This opportunity is given to him in ORDER :to safeguard his interest. In case his explanation is not received by the date mentioned above, it will be deemed that he knowingly and deliberately adopted unfair means in the examination and action will be taken against him accordingly. He is further directed to mention the name and Roll No. of the Examination in his application. 11. In case his explanation is not received by the date mentioned above, it will be deemed that he knowingly and deliberately adopted unfair means in the examination and action will be taken against him accordingly. He is further directed to mention the name and Roll No. of the Examination in his application. 11. (Sic) The difference, of course, in each notice is with respect to the subject and the paper concerned. It would thus be seen that the only particulars which have been given in the notices are that the petitioners had used unfair means in respect of some questions in the paper mentioned in the notices. There is no specification of the question or questions in which the use of unfair means is alleged; the nature of unfair means is also not disclosed in notice. A notice of this kind cannot give sufficient particulars to the student concerned to give any specific reply. What can be said in reply, if the student does not accept the accusations is, that he has not used unfair means; and this is exactly what the students have done. The notice also does not give any particulars of the materials on the basis of which the authorities could infer use of unfair means. In fact, the notice really does not give anything more than the tentative conclusion, without the mention of any material on the basis of which the conclusion could or had been arrived at. To give a notice of this kind is, in my view, to use an oft quoted phrase "an empty formality". If a notice of this kind is given and after a general denial of the petitioner the matter is decided by the authorities without any further investigation or without any further opportunity having been given to meet the allegation, the decision may not fulfill the minimum requirement of the principles of natural justice. To that extent argument of the petitioners appears to be correct. 12. I would further state at this stage that in all cases except one, the students concerned had appeared personally before the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee which was assisted by experts. It would, therefore, be necessary to consider facts relating thereto before coming to the conclusion whether there has been a real violation of the principles of natural justice. 12. I would further state at this stage that in all cases except one, the students concerned had appeared personally before the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee which was assisted by experts. It would, therefore, be necessary to consider facts relating thereto before coming to the conclusion whether there has been a real violation of the principles of natural justice. This, I propose to do, when I am considering once again the various writ application separately. 13. (b). Lack of power in the Examination Board to cancel the results:-- It was contended by Mr. Shyama Pd. Mukherjee that Ordinance Clause 6(v) authorises the Vice-Chancellor alone to pass ORDER :of cancellation of results. The heading of the Ordinance is "Discipline and Disciplinary Action". The aforesaid clause reads thus: The Vice-Chancellor may appoint a Committee for considering all matters relating to the taking of disciplinary action against students charged with use or attempted use of unfair means or violence at the examination or in connection therewith. The recommendation of this Committee shall be placed before the Vice-Chancellor for passing necessary ORDER :s in consultation with the Examination Board. On behalf of the University Mr. Chatterjee referred to Section 28 of the Act which relates to the power of the Examination Board and contended that the aforesaid clause should he so read as not to conflict with the powers in the other Sections of the Act, including Section 28. The power to make Ordinance is contained in Section 32 of the Act. The opening words of the section are:-- Subject to the provisions of the Act and Statutes, the Syndicate may make Ordinances to provide for all or any of the following materials namely..... Section 28 of the Act enumerates the power of the Examination Board and may be usefully quoted; 28(1) Subject to the provisions of the Regulations, all arrangements for the conduct of examinations shall be made by an Examination Board consisting of the Vice-Chancellor as Chairman and the Deans of Faculties as members. (2). The Examination Board shall be responsible for conducting the examinations and making all arrangements for the appointment of examiners, setting and moderating question papers, moderating and preparing and publishing results of examinations and reporting such results to the Academic Council and generally for formulating ways and means for the purpose of improving the machinery for the true assessment of the attainments of the students of the University. As already noticed Section 32, in the opening word, states that the power to make ordinance is subject to the provisions of the Act. This power would, therefore, be subject to Section 28 and will not take away the powers of Examination Board conferred under that Section. It is, therefore, clear that the power of Examination Board cannot be affected on account of the Syndicate making ordinance no. 6 relating to discipline and disciplinary action. Sub-section (2) of Section 28 makes the Examination Board responsible for "conducting the Examination and preparing and publishing results of examination....." These expressions, in my view must be given widest possible meaning. It is thus clear that the Examination Board while conducting the examination and preparing and publishing the result thereof can examine and decide whether the result of a student who had used unfair means should be cancelled. It may be incidentally mentioned that the Vice Chancellor is an ex-officio Chairman of the Examination Board and as such a party to the decision of the Examination Board itself. 14. Examined from another point of view it appears that the power given in the clause aforesaid is only enabling. It can not, therefore, be read to be in derogation to the general power of Examination Board as mentioned in Section 28. To accept the contention of Mr. Mukherjee would mean that if the enabling power had not been exercised by the Vice Chancellor and a Committee had not been constituted, there would be no machinery to deal with cases of use of unfair means. This is an additional reason why I do not feel persuaded to accept the contention of the petitioners. 15(c) Legality of constitution of Special Board of Moderators: Mr. Ghosh, appearing for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. 1516 of 1970, strenuously contended that Chapter II of the regulations framed by the University under Section 34 of the Act deals with the formation of Board of Moderators, There was in fact such a Board in existence. In the circumstances, the formation of a Special Board of Moderators by the University to examine the results was illegal and consequently scaling down of marks by the Special Board of Moderators has, therefore, to be ignored. This point has not been specifically raised in the other two writ applications but the learned counsel in those petitions wanted to adopt it. This point has not been specifically raised in the other two writ applications but the learned counsel in those petitions wanted to adopt it. I do not think it would have been permissibly to allow these points to be raised in the other two applications. Since, however, I am of the view that the contention is not correct, I am not rejecting it only on technical grounds so far as C.W.J.C. nos. 1516 and 1411 of 1970 are concerned. Clause 2 of Chapter II of the Regulations, in so far as is relevant, is as follows:-- 2(a) In any subject or group of subjects in which teaching is done there shall be following Board of Moderators for moderating the question paper and examinations results... (ii) a Board of Moderators for the under-Graduate examinations and the Bachelor examination in the General Course, consisting of not more than four persons, at least one of whom shall be a teacher from outside the University. Reference was also made to Section 34 which states:-- Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances, the Academic Council may make Regulations to provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-- (d) the conditions and mode of appointment and duties of examiners and the conduct of examinations;........ It was contended that in exercise of the powers under the aforesaid section regulations have been framed, which authorise the formation of Board of Moderators. It is this Board and this Board alone which can moderate the examination results. Since the impugned moderation is not by this Board, it has to be ignored. Referring to the powers of the Examination Board it was contended that Section 28, Sub-section (1) states that the arrangement for conducting of examinations has to be made by the Examination Board in exercise of the power under that section which is subject to the provisions of the Regulations. In view of the aforesaid Regulations, the Examination Board could not constitute a Special Board of Moderators when a Board of Moderators was already in existence. Mr. Chatterjee, for the University, firstly contended that Clause 2 of Chapter II of the Regulations deals with or contemplates the regular arrangement for moderation of results in the regular course. The general and extensive powers given to the Examination Board are not affected by the Regulation. Mr. Chatterjee, for the University, firstly contended that Clause 2 of Chapter II of the Regulations deals with or contemplates the regular arrangement for moderation of results in the regular course. The general and extensive powers given to the Examination Board are not affected by the Regulation. He further contended that the petitioners were really relying on the label because the Committee constituted had been called a Special Board of Moderators. I am of the view that the contention of the petitioner does not have merit and cannot be accepted. I have already quoted Section 28 of the Act. Before dealing further with the question, I may state that the University affidavit in Paragraph 16 indicates that as a consequence of tabulation of the result the Examination Board at its meeting held on 3.2.1970 decided that the results in Mathematics, Botany, Geology and Chemistry be referred to Honours Board of Moderators in the aforesaid subjects. Thereafter the Academic Council by its resolution at its meeting on 21.2.1970 authorised the Vice Chancellor to form Special Board, for each subject of B.Sc. final examination, which would examine the answer books and take necessary action. The constitution of the Special Board is thus by and under the authority of the Academic Council. The powers of Academic Council are given in Section 24 of the Act and a constitution of Special Board cannot be said to be beyond the powers contained therein. It is to be noted that the regulations are to be made by the Academic Council and it cannot be accepted that just because regulations had been made for constituting Board of Moderators, the general power of the Academic Council can he said to be taken away. In any event the general power of conducting the examination and preparing and publishing the results is with the Examination Board and the said power in Clause 2 of Section 28 is not made subject to say regulation. I also accept as correct the contention put forth on behalf of the University that the Regulation aforesaid, deals with regular or ordinary cases of moderation. In extraordinary situation, the power of the Academic Council and the Examination Board to constitute Special Committees or Board call it Board of Moderators or call it by any other name--remains unimpaired. I, am, therefore, not able to accept the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. 16. In extraordinary situation, the power of the Academic Council and the Examination Board to constitute Special Committees or Board call it Board of Moderators or call it by any other name--remains unimpaired. I, am, therefore, not able to accept the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. 16. Objections raised by the University as to the maintainability of the writ applications:-- Sri K.D. Chatterjee submitted that one application by several petitioners was not maintainable. Since, however, this objection, if allowed, would have resulted in each of the petition being confined on behalf of one petitioner, it would not have served any useful purpose. The other petitioners would have then filed separate applications which would have further delayed the examination of the questions involved without any benefit to any one. The counsel of the University was present at the time of admission of these applications and no such objection was raised at that stage. In the circumstances, I do not propose to entertain this technical objection. It was next contended that Kailash Pd. Thakur was a necessary party to C.W.J.C. 1518 of 1970, as he would be affected by the success of the writ application. I do not think that the said student is a necessary party to this application and as such this objection has to be over-ruled. Lastly, it was contended, that the petitioners had alternative remedy by way of approaching the Chancellor under Section 8(4) of the Bihar State Universities Act (Bihar Act 14 of 1960). Without deciding the question whether matters, like the ones under consideration, come within the purview of Section 8(4) of the said Act, it appears to me that even if an alternative remedy was available, in the circumstances of the instant cases, we should not exercise our discretion in refusing to entertain these petitions on this ground. The students appeared in the examination which was held in August, 1969. Their results remained pending for sufficiently long time and the cancellation of result has been communicated to the students concerned in late July or August when there was either no time or, if at all, very little time for filing an application for appearing at 1970 annual examination. In matters of this nature it is of utmost importance that the students should know their position clearly as early as possible. In matters of this nature it is of utmost importance that the students should know their position clearly as early as possible. If these applications were not entertained on this technical ground, it would only mean that the students will lose more time, if the final decision is adverse to them. Consequently it is not a fit case in which this Court should refuse the exercise of its discretion of entertaining the applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. I would accordingly overrule this last objection of the contesting respondents. 17. Having dealt with the common points raised on behalf of the petitioners and the contesting respondents, I now propose to deal with each of the writ application separately. But before I do so, I would like to indicate as to what should be the approach of the Court in examining questions of the nature involved in these cases, as also the grounds on which the High Court would be entitled to interfere with the exercise of statutory powers of the University relating to examinations and cancellation of the results thereof. 18. Approach in educational matters and grounds of interference by courts: What should be the correct approach which should be adopted in cases of the nature under consideration has been considered by the Supreme Court in several cases. The real emphasis, if I can respectfully use the expression, in all the decisions is, that in matters educational, it is within the jurisdiction of the educational authorities to decide all matters which fall within their jurisdiction, and it is not the function of the Courts to substitute their own JUDGMENT :s in place of the JUDGMENT : of those who have been so empowered by law. This, however, does not mean that the High Court should not interfere when the interest of justice warrants such an interference. It is neither possible nor advisable to lay down the various circumstances in which courts would be entitled to interfere. For the purposes of this case it is sufficient to say that this Court would be entitled to interfere if; (a) In arriving at the decision the educational authorities had acted in violation of the principles of natural justice. (b) The grounds or reasons on which the decision is founded have no rational connection with the charge under consideration. For the purposes of this case it is sufficient to say that this Court would be entitled to interfere if; (a) In arriving at the decision the educational authorities had acted in violation of the principles of natural justice. (b) The grounds or reasons on which the decision is founded have no rational connection with the charge under consideration. (c) Where no reasonable body of men could have come to the conclusion to which the authorities have arrived at. (d) Where the authorities have not applied their mind to the relevant materials which were before them. 19. It is in the light of the above mentioned principle that I shall now deal with each of the writ applications separately. C.W.J.C. 1516 of 1970. 20. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that apart from the defect in notice, the ORDER :of cancellation of result is liable to be set aside on the ground that the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee, on whose report the petitioners' examination has been cancelled by the Examination Board, violated the principles of natural justice. The ground urged on behalf of the petitioners is that instead of being tested about the use of unfair means, what has been done is, that the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee has constituted itself into an examining body and has, so to say, held an oral examination of the petitioners. On the basis of their performance at that stage the Committee has held the petitioners to be guilty of the use of unfair means. It is further urged that there is no nexus between the method adopted and the conclusion arrived at. It is further said that no reasonable body of men could come to the conclusion that unfair means had been adopted merely because students did not fair well at the oral test. Before dealing with this argument it would be necessary to state as to what really transpired before the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee in the two subjects with which we are concerned in this case. The affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 explains the reasons for the issue of the notices in the form in which it has been issued, as also as to what transpired before the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee. The affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 explains the reasons for the issue of the notices in the form in which it has been issued, as also as to what transpired before the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee. It is stated in Paragraph 5 of the affidavit that the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee after examining some of the cases of use of unfair means came to the conclusion that:-- Since the examinees concerned are informed about the question No. and the book from which they copied the answer, this not only caused considerable delay, but also defeats the purpose of the "tests", as the examinees having teen forwarded about pages of the books, comes prepared, even if he had been ignorant about the source at the time of using unfair means. The Committee, therefore, suggested modification in the form of notice to be issued. The modified form was put before the Examination Board on 5.4.1970 and the Examination Board accepted the suggestion about omitting of the particulars regarding use of unfair means from the notices. The notices issued were in conformity with the form approved by the Examination Board. This, in my view, only explains the reasons or the bonafide for issuing notice in the form in which it has been actually issued in these cases. But it cannot cure the defect in notices which, according to my earlier finding, was there. I have already held that had the matter rested with issuing of notices and the decision had been arrived at on the written explanation only, the requirement of principles of natural justice would not be fulfilled. It would, therefore, be necessary to consider as to what happened thereafter and the effect thereof on this case. The affidavit of the University states as to what happened when the petitioners appeared before Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee on various dates. It states that the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee dealing with allegations of unfair means in Botany papers was assisted by experts. The experts put questions to the petitioners in respect of the answers "in respect of which use of unfair means was alleged, and also generally to test the knowledge of the petitioners in the subject concerned." It is further stated that the experts came to the following conclusion:-- The following could not satisfy us at the interview and tests. The experts put questions to the petitioners in respect of the answers "in respect of which use of unfair means was alleged, and also generally to test the knowledge of the petitioners in the subject concerned." It is further stated that the experts came to the following conclusion:-- The following could not satisfy us at the interview and tests. In our opinion they have used unfair means as reported. Begu 4,11,9,7,56,21H (10.5.70 and 71) 12.5.70. (This includes the petitioners). In so far as Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee dealing with Chemistry papers is concerned, it appears, that when petitioner no. 1 appeared before the Committee on 25.5.1970 the experts were Shri K.P. Bannerji, Shri T.N. Sinha, Lecturers in Chemistry of T.N.B. College, Bhagalpur, while the experts in the case of petitioner no. 2 were Shri S.S. Singh, Lecturer in Chemistry, Post Graduate Department, Bhagalpur University, Shri B.S. Sinha and K.P. Banerji, Lecturers in Chemistry, T.N.B. College, Bhagalpur. Again, according to the affidavit, what happened on that day was that questions were put to the petitioners "in respect of question in respect of which they were alleged to have used unfair means. The experts also questioned them generally. Answer books were shown to them and they were asked to explain the allegations of unfair means." The experts came to the conclusion that the petitioners did not have even basic knowledge of Chemistry and as such they came to the further conclusion that they had answered the questions in the Annual Examination by use of unfair means. The Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee agreed with the recommendation of the experts in respect of petitioner no. 2. The whole matter was placed before the Examination Board on 25.6.1970 which accepted the recommendations of the experts and debarred the petitioners from appearing in any University examination prior to the annual examination of 1970. 21. So far as the use of unfair means in Botany paper is concerned and the conclusion in respect thereto, I do not propose to express any opinion. For in my view the conclusion regarding the use of unfair means in Chemistry paper and the action taken on that basis does not suffer from any of the suggested infirmities. 22. Before dealing further, with the controversy, it would be proper to deal with the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the petitioners on 2.12.1970. For in my view the conclusion regarding the use of unfair means in Chemistry paper and the action taken on that basis does not suffer from any of the suggested infirmities. 22. Before dealing further, with the controversy, it would be proper to deal with the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the petitioners on 2.12.1970. In this rejoinder, as already stated in Paragraph 5 of this JUDGMENT :, there is denial of the statements made in the affidavit of the University regarding what happened before the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee. According to the petitioners no questions were put to them with regard to answers in respect of which use of unfair means was alleged and that no answer books were shown to them. I am not prepared to accept this denial. The deponent on behalf of the University states in Paragraph 1 of his affidavit that he deals with cases where reports are made about adopting unfair means and that in that capacity he was personally present at the meeting of Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee as also the Examination Board. There is no reason why his statement should not be accepted as correct. The petitioners had ample opportunity to file a rejoinder if they so desired. A copy of the affidavit of the University appears to have been served on the counsel of the petitioners on 16.9.70, still they did not file any rejoinder till 2.12.1970 the day on which the hearing of the case was taken up. It has also to be noted that the deponent in the rejoinder is only petitioner no. 1 and so far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned it is stated that the statements by the deponent are on the basis of what has been told to him by petitioner no. 2. I may also state that the affidavit in rejoinder does not inspire confidence for, at least, one of the statements made therein appears to be incorrect. It is stated in Paragraph 8 "I strenuously refute that I failed to satisfy the experts in the Scrutiny Committee." This is surely not the correct position. It only shows that statements have been made in the rejoinder in a thoughtless manner. Apart from that, I am of the view, that it is probable that the Committee and experts should have acted in the way as stated in the University affidavit. 23. It only shows that statements have been made in the rejoinder in a thoughtless manner. Apart from that, I am of the view, that it is probable that the Committee and experts should have acted in the way as stated in the University affidavit. 23. It is thus clear, in my view, that the experts and the Scrutiny Committee in ORDER :to find out whether students had used unfair means in answering some of the questions in the Chemistry paper concerned, after having shown the relevant answers and questioned the students concerned about these answers, decided to test the students to find out whether they had even basic knowledge of the subject. The approach of the experts appears to be that if a student does not have even basic knowledge of the subject concerned he could not but have used unfair means in answering the questions in the paper concerned. Now the question is, whether this is a test which could have been adopted for the conclusion arrived at, and whether on the basis of the conclusion that the students did not have basic knowledge it could be held by a reasonable body of men that they had used unfair means at the examination. I am not prepared to accept the contention that the Committee or the experts were trying to re-examine the students and to assess their general standard or, as was suggested, they were holding an alternative examination. What the experts actually did was that they wanted to test whether the students concerned had that basic knowledge without which it would not be possible for anyone to answer the questions, This to my mind is not an unreasonable method at all nor I am in a position to say that a reasonable body of men, could not have adopted this method or, could not have come to the conclusion of use of unfair means in the examination on failure of the students concerned to satisfy them that they did not have even basic knowledge of the subject. 24. Mr. S.P. Mukherji contended that the conclusion of the experts could not but be unreasonable, as the petitioners had passed B.Sc. Part I examination and they could not have done so if they had no basic knowledge of the subject. It is not for me to speculate as to how the petitioners had passed the earlier examination. 24. Mr. S.P. Mukherji contended that the conclusion of the experts could not but be unreasonable, as the petitioners had passed B.Sc. Part I examination and they could not have done so if they had no basic knowledge of the subject. It is not for me to speculate as to how the petitioners had passed the earlier examination. But what is clear is, on the materials on the record, that the petitioners had not in fact satisfied the experts as stated above. 25. Learned counsel for the University had with him, and produced before us, the relevant proceedings of the Committee and he snowed it to the learned counsel for the petitioners as well. It appears that the experts after the interview classified the students concerned into two categories. The first category was of such students who, according to them had some knowledge in the subject. The second category of students, according to the experts lacked basic knowledge in the subject, and it was in respect of such students only that the experts came to the conclusion that the answers given by them could not have been given except by use of unfair means at the examination. 26. I am consequently of the view that in so far as the students, who had appeared before the Scrutiny Committee, are concerned they had a fair opportunity to meet the charges of use of unfair means at the examination. They were shown the answer books, questioned in respect of the answer in respect of which use of unfair means was apprehended and they were tested to find out whether they had such basic knowledge as to answer those questions. None of them appear to have objected to the procedure adopted at that stage. In such a situation it cannot be held that there was violation of principles of natural justice. 27. I am, therefore, not able to accept the contentions raised by Shri S.P. Mukherjee on behalf of the petitioners and I do not find that the decision of the authorities suffers from any of the infirmities suggested in course of the argument. 28. I would, accordingly, hold that there is no merit in C.W.J.C. no. 1516 of 1970 and it is fit to be dismissed. C.W.J.C. 1411 of 1970. 29. 28. I would, accordingly, hold that there is no merit in C.W.J.C. no. 1516 of 1970 and it is fit to be dismissed. C.W.J.C. 1411 of 1970. 29. The ground of attack, so far as petitioners 1 to 18 are concerned, in this writ application was also similar to those in the other writ petition, with this difference that in this case there was difference of opinion between the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee and the experts except in so far as petitioners 3, 5, 12 and 18 are concerned. Whereas in respect of the other fourteen petitioners the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee was of the opinion that benefit of doubt should be given, the experts were of the contrary view. Here also according to the affidavit of the University it appears that the answer books were shown to the petitioners, questions were put "in respect of the answers in respect of which allegations of unfair means were made" and on being satisfied that they did not have elementary idea of mathematics or did not have basic knowledge of Chemistry the experts were of the view that the students concerned had used unfair means at the examination. An affidavit has been filed by petitioner no. 11 in reply to the University affidavit. In Paragraph 7 of this affidavit it is stated that it is absolutely false to say that answer books were also shown to the petitioners. This has been stated to the knowledge of deponent. It is obvious that this could not be so. He could have personal knowledge only regarding himself and not regarding the other petitioners. I am, therefore, not prepared to place reliance on this denial. I have already given my reason for holding that the affidavit on behalf of the University inspires confidence, is by a competent person, and fits in with the probabilities of the situation. 30. The Examination Board had before it the opinion of the members of the Scrutiny Committee as also the experts and it preferred to act upon the opinion of the experts. I have already given my reasons as to why the method adopted and the conclusion arrived at by the experts (which has been accepted and adopted by the Examination Board) does not suffer from any infirmity. I have already given my reasons as to why the method adopted and the conclusion arrived at by the experts (which has been accepted and adopted by the Examination Board) does not suffer from any infirmity. I would only add that the fact that there was difference of opinion between the members of the Scrutiny Committee and experts in some cases would not affect the validity of the decision of the Examination Board which had the authority, in my view, to arrive at the decision, it has arrived at in this case. 31. It now only remains to consider the case of petitioner no. 19. It has been stated in Paragraph 7 of the affidavit filed on 18.9.70 that show cause notice was not served on the petitioner. This has not been denied, nor any material has been produced to show that the notice had, in fact, been served on the petitioner. In fact, Annexure-21 to the writ petition indicates that as soon as this petitioner came to know that some action had been taken against him, he filed an application asserting that he had not received any notice at all. It thus appears that action against petitioner no. 19 has been taken without any opportunity having been given to meet the charges levelled against him. This, obviously, violates the principles of natural justice and the cancellation of his result, therefore, calls for interference by this Court. I may also state that petitioner no. 19 had been served with a notice in Botany and he did actually appear in pursuance of that notice and satisfied the Committee that he had not used unfair means in Botany. 32. In the result the application of petitioners 1 to 18 in this writ application, being without merit, is fit to be dismissed. The application of petitioner no. 19 is fit to be allowed and the cancellation of his result is liable to be set aside. The authorities should consider whether they should declare petitioner no. 19 as having passed B.Sc. examination of 1969 by publishing his result or that they should hold a fresh inquiry after serving show cause notice. It is not for this Court to suggest what should be done by the University. The authorities should consider whether they should declare petitioner no. 19 as having passed B.Sc. examination of 1969 by publishing his result or that they should hold a fresh inquiry after serving show cause notice. It is not for this Court to suggest what should be done by the University. It is, however, to be hoped that in deciding the matter the University will take into consideration that the petitioner has already suffered, not for any fault of his own and that, at least in one subject, the suspicion against him was unfounded. C.W.J.C. 1518 of 1970. 33. The petitioner's son in this case, it appears, had an above average career. In the Secondary School Examination held in 1965 the petitioner's son secured first division and was awarded National Scholarship for the children of school teachers on the result of his examination. Thereafter he appeared at Pre-science annual examination, 1966 and secured first division with distinction in Chemistry and Mathematics. In the year 1967, he passed B.Sc. previous examination and again secured first division with distinction in Mathematics. I have already stated that there was revaluation of marks in answer books of Misra in Mathematics and Chemistry as a result whereof his marks were reduced. The attack on this reduction was on the ground of lack of power in the Special Board of Moderators to reduce the mark originally obtained in the two subjects. This, I have already rejected. It follows, therefore, that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief claimed in respect of marks obtained by him in these two subjects. 34. It now remains to consider whether the cancellation of result of Misra is sustainable. 35. The first contention that has been raised by Mr. Ghosh on behalf of the petitioner is that Dr. P.L. Shrivastava was acting mala fide. The allegations of mala fide are contained in Paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the petition. Mr. Ghosh suggested that after the marks were tabulated, it was found that the petitioner's son was going to obtain first class first in Physics Honours and Kailash Pd. Takur would obtain first class second. Kailash Pd. Thakur is brother of Dr. Lambodar Thakur who is Professor of Department of Chemistry of T.N.B. College, Bhagalpur and that Dr. P.L. Shrivastava is a colleague and fast friend of Dr. Lambodar Thakur aforesaid. The suggestion is that in ORDER :to help Kailash Pd. Takur would obtain first class second. Kailash Pd. Thakur is brother of Dr. Lambodar Thakur who is Professor of Department of Chemistry of T.N.B. College, Bhagalpur and that Dr. P.L. Shrivastava is a colleague and fast friend of Dr. Lambodar Thakur aforesaid. The suggestion is that in ORDER :to help Kailash Pd. Thakur there was a motivated report which was submitted, not at the time of examination of the answer books, but on a subsequent date. Dr. P.L. Shrivastava was made respondent in this writ application being respondent no. 4. The aforesaid statements are stated in the affidavit to be derived from records, the actual word used being "from the records or otherwise of the case". It is not understandable how the allegations mentioned above could have been obtained by the petitioner from the course as aforesaid. The University affidavit in Paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 has explained the position. There was, according to the affidavit, an earlier report, which being untraceable, resulted in Dr. Shrivastava sending a copy of that report. This report is not only against the petitioner's son but also against 12 others. There is no reason to suppose that in ORDER :to damage the petitioner's son twelve other unconnected persons would have been roped in. I am thus not satisfied about the allegations of mala fide made in the affidavit. Mr. Ghosh contended that in the absence of any counter affidavit by Dr. Shrivastava, the Court should draw an adverse inference. Dr. Shrivastava, the University affidavit explains, is not at present in the country. In any event, Dr. Shrivastava, not being personally interested in the matter, there is no reason why he should have taken care and pains to file an affidavit specially when he was going outside the country and is now admittedly abroad, I am, therefore, not able to accept the contention of mala fide raised on behalf of the petitioner on the basis of the materials on the records of this case. 36. The main question, however, remains to be considered. I have already given some relevant facts in Paragraph 7. It will now be necessary to consider in some detail, as to what happened before the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee, the report of the said Committee, and the conclusion and the decision of the Examination Board with reasons thereof. The report of unfair means as submitted by Dr. I have already given some relevant facts in Paragraph 7. It will now be necessary to consider in some detail, as to what happened before the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee, the report of the said Committee, and the conclusion and the decision of the Examination Board with reasons thereof. The report of unfair means as submitted by Dr. Shrivastava, so far as is relevant, was as follows:-- (Misra's Roll No; was 42H--Monghyr) The Moderation Board whose report is Annexure-B to the University affidavit, so far as is relevant, is as follows:-- Scrutinised the report made by Dr. P.L. Shrivastava. Our comments are as follows:-- (a) We agree with the report made by the Examiner in the following cases Mong. 42H, 15H, Beg. 71H, 72H, 121H The report of the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee is Annexure-C to the University affidavit. The gist thereof has already been given by me. It may now be quoted in full; The boy in his written explanation had said that the question was so simple that no rough work was needed. But to our surprise the boy when he appeared before the Committee on 5.5.70, pointed out that rough calculation of the numerical portion of question no. 2 was present. It was so, and quite prominently, a suspicion therefore arose about it and it looked surprising whether the rough so prominently written could have escaped the attention of the examiner as also the Moderation Board. The Committee therefore called Dr. P.L. Shrivastava, the examiner who had made the report who saw the answer book and said that the rough work was not there when he had examined the paper. If the rough work was put on the paper after the report was made, it becomes a very serious matter and cannot be done without the collaboration of someone in the office. The matter therefore deserves a serious investigation. The Committee recommends that the matter be referred to some hand writing Expert (confidentially) to determine the file of the rough work and the written answer so that we can arrive at a conclusion that the rough work was a later work done in collaboration of someone in the office. The performance of the boy was however satisfactory before the Committee. He is very bright and the Examination Board may take this into consideration taking a decision about the boy in particular. The performance of the boy was however satisfactory before the Committee. He is very bright and the Examination Board may take this into consideration taking a decision about the boy in particular. It appears that during the course of interview, the members of Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee began to turn over the pages of the answer book and then it was discovered that there was some rough work relating to sum portion of question no. 2. Such is the statement in the writ petition which has not been denied in the University affidavit. It would thus appear that it was not that Misra himself who had pointed out that there was rough work, but the same was discovered, in ordinary course, as the answer book was being examined. It is to be noted that the explanation which Misra had given in answer to the show cause notice was given by him some seven months after the examination. It is not to be expected that at that points of time, i.e., after about seven months, a student will be able to recall whether he has actually done small rough work or not. There is thus no real conflict in his explanation and the discovery of actual rough work in the answer book when he appeared before the Committee. The student in his written explanation, which is Annexure 2 to the petition, stated that the sum can be solved without any rough work. Annexure-C, which I have already quoted, shows that after the discovery of rough work in the answer book, Dr. Shrivastava was called. Neither the report aforesaid nor the University affidavit states that it was in the presence of Misra that Dr. Shrivastava was questioned by the Committee. The method, therefore, adopted by the Committee is defective and in violation of principles of natural justice. It is clear that on a vital matter as this, the Committee should have examined Dr. Shrivastava in the presence of the student concerned and, if the student so desired, should have permitted him to question Dr. Shrivastava in ORDER :to test whether his recollection was correct or dependable. This itself would have been a sufficient infirmity to call for interference. The report of the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee as I read it, does not really hold Misra guilty of the use of unfair means. Shrivastava in ORDER :to test whether his recollection was correct or dependable. This itself would have been a sufficient infirmity to call for interference. The report of the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee as I read it, does not really hold Misra guilty of the use of unfair means. It only suggests that they had strong suspicion that there was a subsequent interpolation which required further investigation. They were also satisfied with the performance of Misra at the interview and described him as very bright. It is significant to note that although Misra in his written explanation had offered that he was capable of answering the question concerned without any rough work and that he was directed by Annexure 3 to appear before the Committee to support his contention: "that the answers had been reproduced from memory", in case he chose to do so, the Committee did not actually ask him or test him whether his contention as raised in his written explanation, Annexure 2 was correct. It appears to me that the Committee thought it unnecessary to test him in terms of the notice (Annexure 3), as they were satisfied from his performance at the interview that he would be able to substantiate his claim. The Examination Board considered the matter and its decision is contained in the resolution of the Examination Board which is Annexure 8. Annexure 8 indicates that the Examination Board read the report of Dr. Shrivastava to mean that question no. 2 could not, in his opinion, be solved by the candidate without making rough calculation. I do not find any justification for this conclusion from the report of Dr. Shrivastava. He has nowhere said that the candidate could not have been able to answer the sum concerned without rough work. He had only reported the possibility of use of unfair means and had not given any remark to the effect that the question could not be answered without any rough work having been done. Thus, to begin with, the Examination Board appears to have made certain assumptions for which there is no basis. 37. Further the Examination Board has given the reasons for its conclusion that unfair means had been used by Misra. The relevant extracts from Annexure 8 which give the reason may now be quoted. Thus, to begin with, the Examination Board appears to have made certain assumptions for which there is no basis. 37. Further the Examination Board has given the reasons for its conclusion that unfair means had been used by Misra. The relevant extracts from Annexure 8 which give the reason may now be quoted. The Examination Board finds two significant points in this connection, namely, (1) although the boy claims that he has been very good in arithmetical calculations, there is evidence in his answer book of very minor calculation for instance vide page 51 of the answer book. If the boy were as good at calculations as he claims, he need not have made simple arithmetical calculation as done at page 51, he should have solved such calculation orally; (2) it is also seen that in the usual course, the boy does rough scribblings by way of arithmetical calculation at pages 47 and 51 where he has done the main' work However, in case of the numerical to Q. No. 2 the rough work is far removed from the actual place where he has worked out the numerical of Q. No. 2. From all these, the Examination Board concludes that the rough calculation on page 42 of the answer book is an interpolation. The matter, therefore, needs to be investigated. This interpolation seems to have been done after the answer book was scrutinised by the Board of Moderators and before the same was put up before the members of the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee. This needs a thorough probe. In the meantime, the present examination of Roll Mong. No. 42H is cancelled and he is debarred from sitting at any examination prior to the Annual Examination of 1970. 38. In attacking the resolution of the Examination Board Mr. B.C. Ghosh raised the following main contentions: (a) On correct in Interpretation of Annexure 8 it cannot be said that the Examination Board came to a conclusion that there was use of unfair means. The ORDER :passed by the Board is, therefore, bad in law. (b) Show cause notice to the student Misra was in respect of having used unfair means at the examination. The foundation of the conclusion of the Examination Board being interpolation in his answer book, for which there was no show cause notice, the ORDER :is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. (b) Show cause notice to the student Misra was in respect of having used unfair means at the examination. The foundation of the conclusion of the Examination Board being interpolation in his answer book, for which there was no show cause notice, the ORDER :is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. (c) Even if it be assumed, that the Committee had found subsequent interpolation in the answer book; this does not lead to the conclusion that the student had used unfair means at the examination which was the only question to be considered. In other words no reasonable person would have come to the conclusion that unfair means had been adopted at the examination merely because subsequent to the examination some minor interpolation was done in the examination paper in the anxiety to get over the unfounded charge of use of unfair means. (d) That the grounds on which charge of interpolation is said to have been established cannot be the basis for such a conclusion. (e) Lastly, it was submitted, that the Examination Board has not applied its mind to the answer books at all because the grounds given by the Board are not borne out by an examination of the answer book (This argument was based on the examination of answer books which were produced during the course of argument by the counsel for the University). 39. I deal with the arguments in the same ORDER :. (a) So far as the first argument is concerned I am not able to agree with the submission that the Examination Board was not of the opinion that Misra had used unfair means. It is true that they have given only a finding regarding interpolation in the answer book. But reading the resolution Annexure 8 as a whole, it is clear they were of such an opinion, inferring the use of unfair means on the basis of their finding on the question of interpolation. The mere fact that they wanted further, investigation in ORDER :to fix responsibility for the supposed interpolation does not mean that they had not arrived at any conclusion regarding the use of unfair means. The first contention is, therefore, fit to be rejected. (b) The second contention, it appears, has force. The mere fact that they wanted further, investigation in ORDER :to fix responsibility for the supposed interpolation does not mean that they had not arrived at any conclusion regarding the use of unfair means. The first contention is, therefore, fit to be rejected. (b) The second contention, it appears, has force. Learned counsel relied on the case of (1) Aditya Kumar Singh V. Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi and another (1970 B.L.J.R. 836 at 843). In that case the show cause notice required the student to show cause as to why he should not be held guilty of having inflated the marks in the mark-sheet produced by him at the time of admission. The student, however, was refused permission to appear at the examination on the ground that he did not fulfill minimum qualification for admission into the institution. It was held that the first charge having been given up, the petitioner in that case could not be punished for the charge for which he had no notice. Similarly in this case Misra had no notice that there was any allegation of interpolation against him. He was at no stage apprised that the Committee thought that he had interpolated in the examination paper and thus had no opportunity to meet the allegation in respect of interpolation. I thus find substance in the second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. (c) The third contention raised on behalf of the petitioner also appears to have some substance. The question for consideration before the Examination Board was whether in the examination itself there has been use of unfair means, and not whether there was any interpolation made by the petitioner or at his instance in his answer book subsequently, in ORDER :to allay the charge of use of unfair means. Mr. Chatterji, for the University, contended that if in the opinion of the Examination Board, the student tried to destroy the very foundation on which the charge of use of unfair means rested, the Examination Board could legitimately come to a conclusion that such an action on the part of student lands to the inference that he had used unfair means at the examination. Assuming that the interpolation was by or at the instance of the petitioner, in my view, it does not necessarily follow that just because such an interpolation was made, the petitioner must be held to have used unfair means in answering questions in his examination. At best, this could be used as one of the circumstances coupled with other facts and circumstances in deciding the question of use of unfair means, but I am doubtful whether the conclusion of use of unfair means in the examination can be solely based on the ground that there has been a subsequent interpolation in the answer book of the student concerned, Since, however, the petition is fit to be allowed for other reasons, which I would presently deal with, it is not necessary to decide this question finally. (d) In this case the Examination Board has given two reasons for its conclusion. The first reason is that simple arithmetical calculation has been done at page 51 of the answer book. The fact that there is arithmetical calculation at page 51 cannot lead to the conclusion that the calculation in respect of question no. 2 was interpolation. It is difficult to see as to how the conclusion of interpolation could be arrived at on the basis of this reason. The second reason given is that at pages 47 and 51 arithmetical calculations are done where main work has been done but in question no. 2 the rough work was far removed. I am again not able to appreciate how from this fact or this fact together with the first reasoning mentioned above, a conclusion of interpolation could at all be arrived at, specially when the rough work has been done at a convenient place which would be apparent from later discussion. It is, therefore, clear that none of the reasons given by the Examination Board could lead to the conclusion of interpolation in the answer book. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner on this aspect of the case, therefore, appears to be correct. (e) Learned counsel for the University, although strongly supporting the action taken by the University, has taken a fair attitude in this case. He-had the answer books and the various reports available with him in the Court so that the same could be examined, if it was necessary. (e) Learned counsel for the University, although strongly supporting the action taken by the University, has taken a fair attitude in this case. He-had the answer books and the various reports available with him in the Court so that the same could be examined, if it was necessary. That the counsel should have kept the entire record available with himself, is only proper in a proceeding where a prayer has been made for issue of a writ of certiorari. 40. As already indicated the last submission is based on the examination of the answer book of the petitioner. The petitioner had answered Physics paper I in several answer books. The petitioner started answering question no. 2 in his third answer book, which continued over to the fourth answer book. The practice in the University is that the students have to give their answers on both sides of the pages. The reverse of the title page, however, is not ordinarily used for the purpose. It appears that the arithmetical calculation in question no. 2 was at the reverse of the title page of the fourth answer book. The last process of the sum portion of question no. 2 is on the sixth page of the fourth answer book. At page 51 of the answer book there is some calculation. Again at page 47 on the top portion there is some rough work. The calculation at page 51 has been taken to be simple arithmetical calculation. It appears that the Examination Board did not at all apply its mind as to the contents of the rough work in the answer book at that page. It is clear that the said calculation is not simple arithmetical but is algebraic calculation. Moreover it is clear that it is not a calculation necessary for the purpose of answering the question. It is, what Mr. Ghosh described, a calculation for the purpose of finding out whether the answer arrived at was correct. It is difficult to understand how the said calculation could be said to be minor and simple arithmetical calculation. It would be clear to anyone who has elementary knowledge of mathematics that whereas it was possible to answer question no. 2 without actually writing out rough work, it would not be possible, at least not easily, to do what has been done at page 51 orally, simple though the algebraic calculation may be. It would be clear to anyone who has elementary knowledge of mathematics that whereas it was possible to answer question no. 2 without actually writing out rough work, it would not be possible, at least not easily, to do what has been done at page 51 orally, simple though the algebraic calculation may be. It appears that since there was some writing on that page the Examination Board without applying its mind as to what was really contained therein came to a conclusion, which does not even appear to be a possible conclusion. In respect of the second reasoning given by the Board, it again appears that algebraic calculations have been confused with arithmetical calculations. This again shows non-application of mind by the Examination Board. I may further state that Mr. Chatterjee for the University was not able to point out any rule or direction which requires the rough work, if any, to be done on the same page where the main work has been done. In absence of such a direction, it is difficult to appreciate how an arithmetical calculation removed from the main question could lead to the conclusion of use of unfair means or interpolation in the answer book. The calculation has been made at a convenient page which would not be utilised for answering the questions. In my view, therefore, the submission of Mr. Ghosh, that the conclusion arrived at by the Examination Board is without real application of mind to the relevant materials on the record which was before it, appears to be correct. 41. Mr. Ghosh stated that in fact the rough calculation was not necessary in this case and there was no reason why an interpolation should have been made, when the student could have very easily demonstrated that he could give the answer without resorting to the rough calculation. He pointed out that the arithmetical calculation was in respect of the fraction 25.8/66, and could easily be solved without rough work by a good student and certainly by a person who has been described as very bright by the Scrutiny Committee itself. That the answer can be solved orally by a good student does not admit of any doubt, for the calculation is really simple and can hardly take about half a minute to arrive at the answer without any rough work. That the answer can be solved orally by a good student does not admit of any doubt, for the calculation is really simple and can hardly take about half a minute to arrive at the answer without any rough work. But since the conclusion of the Examination Board is not based on the fact that the student could not solve the question without rough work, the matter need not be considered further. 41. It would, therefore, appear that the petition is fit to be allowed. Mr. Chatterjee contended that in case the application is allowed there should be an ORDER :directing the Examination Board to reconsider the whole matter. In the circumstances of this case, I do not think that this is the proper course to adopt. In this case I have come to the conclusion, that on the basis of the materials before the Examination Board, it was not possible to come to the conclusion, that the student, Misra, had used unfair means at the examination or made interpolation in the answer book. In such situation, the proper ORDER :would be to quash the ORDER :of cancellation of the examination of the petitioner's son, Chandrakant Misra and direct that his result should be declared on the basis of his answer at the Annual Examination, 1969, taking into consideration the revalued marks as given by the Special Board of Moderators in Chemistry and Mathematics. 42. Summarising, the position is that C.W.J.C. 1516 of 1970 is dismissed. The application of petitioners 1 to 18 in C.W.J.C. 1411 of 1970 is also dismissed but the petition of petitioner no. 19 is allowed in terms of the ORDER :indicated above. The application of petitioner in C.W.J.C. 1518 of 1970 is allowed in part and the proper ORDER :would be as indicated above. In the circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs.