Judgment 1. This writ application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner praying that an order dated the 24th March, 1969, (Annexure 4), passed by the Board of Examinations on the State Board of Technical Education be quashed. By this order the Board of Examinations held that the petitioner had adopted unfair means at the supplementary diploma engineering examination of 1967, held in 1968, and was declared to have failed in the examination and was also debarred from appearing at any diploma examination conducted by the State Board of Technical Education prior to the annual diploma engineering examination of 1969. The petitioner has also prayed, further, that the respondents be directed to publish the result of the petitioner on the basis of the marks obtained by him in the Board Examination of the year 1967, (supplementary examination), held in 1968. 2. The facts and the circumstances of the case are as follows: The petitioner was a student of the Government Polytechnic in Purnea in the years 1964 to 1967 and he had appeared in the final diploma examination in 1967. He had failed in three papers, namely (i) Electrical Technological Paper III, (ii) Electrical Technological Paper IV, and (iii) Drawing. He had been allowed to appear compartmentally in the supplementary examination held in June, 1968. Thereafter an order was passed on the 24th October, 1968, by the Controller of Examinations, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 1, stating that a number of candidates, including the petitioner, had failed at the supplementary diploma engineering examination, 1967, as they had adopted unfair means, and they were debarred from appearing at the 1968 supplementary, 1969 annual and 1969 supplementary examinations. Thereafter some of the candidates had come up to this Court in Writ applications, numbered as C. W. J. C. Nos. 1111, 1189, and 1190 of 1968. All these three cases were decided by this court by judgment and order dated the 19th December, 1968, and the applications were allowed and the order passed by the Board of Technical Education, Bihar, dated the 24th October, 1968, was quashed. This court directed that if the Board desired to proceed against the petitioners of those cases, the matter may be taken up after giving them a chance to explain the charge as to unfair means they were said to have adopted. This court directed that if the Board desired to proceed against the petitioners of those cases, the matter may be taken up after giving them a chance to explain the charge as to unfair means they were said to have adopted. It is stated that in pursuance of the judgment of this Court, a show cause notice dated the 19th February, 1969, was issued to the petitioner and a copy of it has been appended as Ann. 2. The petitioner had shown cause on the 8th March, 1969, and a copy of the petitioners show cause petition has been given as Annexure 3. It was thereafter that the impugned order was passed on the 24th March, 1969. This order stated that certain candidates had adopted unfair means either at the supplementary diploma engineering examination 1967 or at the annual diploma engineering examination, 1968, and were declared to have failed at those examinations and were debarred from appearing at any diploma engineering examination prior to the annual diploma engineering examination, 1969. The petitioner was one of the candidates affected by this order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that according to the show cause notice (Annexure 2), all that was alleged against the petitioner was that he had adopted unfair means in answering question Nos. 5 and 7 of the Electrical Technological Paper IV and that the allegations were very vague. Our attention was also drawn to the show cause petition filed by the petitioner (Annexure 3) in which it was mentioned that all that was found against the petitioners answers of question Nos. 5 and 7 was that some portion of the answer was wrong. According to the number obtained by the petitioner at the examination of this paper, he had obtained 41 marks and it is contended that in answering questions some mistakes may be found but that did not lead to the conclusion that the petitioner had adopted unfair means. In substance the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner amounts to this, that, all that had been found against the petitioner was that he had made certain mistakes in answering question Nos. 5 and 7 and, therefore, the order incorporated in Annexure 4 stating that the petitioner had also adopted unfair means was wrong and arbitrary. 4. In substance the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner amounts to this, that, all that had been found against the petitioner was that he had made certain mistakes in answering question Nos. 5 and 7 and, therefore, the order incorporated in Annexure 4 stating that the petitioner had also adopted unfair means was wrong and arbitrary. 4. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the State Board of Technical Education, Bihar, has referred to the counter affidavit filed in this case, and, has relied upon Annexures A, B and C appended thereto, Ann. A is a copy of the report made by the Head Examiner and had stated that from the answer books of the students, including the petitioner of this case, it had appeared that unfair means had been adopted by a large section of students of Gaya, Patna and Purnea centres. The relevant portion may be quoted from this annexure. It was mentioned that: "These are the cases where the language of the answers tally word by word, correct results have been reached though the steps are wrong and irrelevant and similar mistakes have been made....." Annexure B, a copy of the report made by the Moderation Board, stated that the explanations given by the candidates concerned in respect of the allegation of adoption of unfair means by them had been examined by the Board of Moderators and the findings of the Board were being sent to the Examination Board. This annexure also stated that the explanation given by the petitioner, amongst others, was unsatisfactory and the adoption of unfair means had been established. Annexure C is the copy of the order of the Examination Board holding that having considered the recommendations of the moderation board the petitioner should not be allowed to appear at any examination prior to 1969 annual examination. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials on record we are satisfied that the order incorporated in Annexure 4 cannot be said to be arbitrary in view of what has been stated from Annexures A, B and C. It is clear that individual cases were considered from all relevant aspects and the conclusions of the Head Examiner, Moderation Board and the Examination Board were based on materials before them, which materials had been scrutinised as far as it was possible to do so. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has then argued that the petitioners case had neither fallen under Category IV nor category V of the Rules of the Patna University, followed in this case, as has been stated in Paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, read with Annexure D of the same. It is argued that actual copying from other answer book or from any piece of paper has not been established, and, therefore, category IV of Annexure D had not been established and category V was not established as no report had been made by any examiner that two answer books had tallied. It is difficult to accede to this contention also as it is clear from the conclusion mentioned in Annexure A, quoted above, that, the petitioners case fell within category IV of unfair means adopted, mentioned in Annexure D. From the facts established from Annexure A, the inference was irresistible that either the petitioner had copied from anothers answer book or that all the candidates, referred to in Annexure A, had copied from identical pieces of paper in answering certain questions. Therefore, the last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner must also fail. In our opinion, no case has been made out for interference at this stage. All that can be said is that in Annexure 4 the authority concerned should have given some more details so that the petitioner would have been in a position to know the adoption of what unfair means had been established against him, before he had moved this Court, but that we will take into consideration in the matter of cost and although this application fails, we will deprive the successful party from its costs incurred in this Court. 7. The writ application is, therefore, dismissed, but without costs.