Judgment S.ALI AHMAD, J. 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the Notification No. 70/RAU Pusa, dated the 28th of January, 1974 (annexure 6) by which the petitioner has been debarred from appearing at the B.Sc. (Ag.) Part - IV, Annual and Supplementary Examinations 1973. A prayer has also been made for issue of a writ commanding respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to publish the result of the petitioner on the basis of the annual examination held in 1973. 2. Relevant facts leading to this application are that the petitioner, who held a diploma in agriculture was originally employed as a Village Level Worker in the Department of Agriculture. His name was recommended by the State Government for higher studies. Consequently, he joined Ranchi Agriculture College, Kanke, in December, 1970. He appeared at Part-I examination and got First Division. He was exempted from appearing at Part-II examination of the Degree course. At Part-III examination, the petitioner got first place amongst the successful candidates who secured First Division. In July, 1973, the petitioner was appearing at Part-IV examination of the Degree Course. On the 18th of August, 1973, he was appearing in Agronomy Paper II (Farm Management). Dr. A. K. Dutta, who was the Examination-in-charge, noticed a chit. According to Dr. Dutta, the petitioner was copying from that chit. Dr. Dutta asked the petitioner to hand over the chit and the answer book to him but he succeeded in getting the chit only. The petitioner continued writing. He also appeared on the subsequent dates and completed the examination. The petitioner has denied the allegation of use of any unfair means by him at the examination when Dr. Dutta is said to have taken the chit from him. It is alleged by the petitioner that he denied to have adopted any unfair means at the examination. Dr. Dutta and respondent No. 5 compared the answer book with the chit said to have been recovered from the petitioner. They were satisfied that the petitioner had not copied from the chit and, therefore, the answer book was returned to him who completed the examination. Further, the petitioner alleges that, when on the following day, i. e., on the 19th of August, 1973, Mr. S. M. Alam, Principal of the College, who was also Centre Superintendent, returned from Patna, he called Dr. Further, the petitioner alleges that, when on the following day, i. e., on the 19th of August, 1973, Mr. S. M. Alam, Principal of the College, who was also Centre Superintendent, returned from Patna, he called Dr. Dutta and asked him to submit a written report against the petitioner. Dr. Dutta, accordingly, submitted a report on the 22nd August, 1973, on the basis of which respondent No. 3 sent confidential report to the Deputy Registrar (Examination), Rajendra Agriculture University, Samastipur, wherein he, inter alia, said that the student was copying from the chit which was detected by Dr. A. K. Dutta and was recovered from him. This report has been marked as annexure B to the counter-affidavit on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. A notice was issued to the petitioner by which he was asked to show cause as to why he should not be debarred from appearing at any University examination prior to 1975. The petitioner submitted his show cause (annexure 2 to the writ application). A perusal of annexure 2 will show that the petitioner has refuted the allegation that he was copying from the chit. His case seems to be that Dr. A. K. Dutta, who had malice against him, picked up the chit from somewhere else, and came to the petitioner and asked him as to why he was copying from that chit. The petitioner immediately said that he had no knowledge of the chit and that he was not copying from the chit. In fact, he offered his answer book to be compared with the chit and also said that he was prepared to write the same thing if another answer book was supplied to him without the help of the chit. It is said that, on account of certain incidents in the college, Dr. A. K. Dutta, respondent No. 4 and Dr. S. M. Alam, respondent No. 3, were prejudiced against the petitioner. Details of such incidents were also mentioned in the show cause which need not be mentioned here. Towards the end of his show cause, the petitioner also stated that he had no knowledge as to what actually had been mentioned against him in the report. In case a true copy of the same was supplied to him, he would be a position to give better reply which right he was reserving. Towards the end of his show cause, the petitioner also stated that he had no knowledge as to what actually had been mentioned against him in the report. In case a true copy of the same was supplied to him, he would be a position to give better reply which right he was reserving. Again, by a letter addressed to respondent No. 1, dated the 10th of December, 1973 (annexure 3), a request was made that his case should be considered by a Committee of which Mr. S. M. Alam was not a member. It was again reiterated in that letter that Mr. Alam was prejudiced against the petitioner and an apprehension was expressed that, if the Committee of which Mr. Alam was a member considered the case of the petitioner, the other members of the Committee would be influenced by Mr. Alam and that the petitioner would be debarred from impartial consideration. In those circumstances, a request was made that Mr. Alam should not be nominated as a member of the Unfair Means Committee. By another representation, dated the 13th of December, 1973, the petitioner prayed that he might be heard in person by Unfair Means Committee so as to enable him to explain his conduct and satisfy the members that he was not guilty of any unfair means at the examination. It appears that no reply was given to any of the representations made by the petitioner. The Unfair Means Committee of which respondent No. 3 was a member met and, after considering the case of the petitioner, decided to debar the petitioner from appearing at the B.Sc. (Ag.) Part IV Annual/Supplementary Examination, 1973. 3. A rejoinder has been filed by the respondents challenging the allegation of bias as alleged by the petitioner and it has been stated that the petitioner was adopting unfair means at the examination which was detected by Dr. A. K. Dutta. 4. Mr. Basudeo Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that, in this case, the petitioner has been denied reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have been violated. He has also submitted that respondent No. 3 had a definite bias against the petitioner. A. K. Dutta. 4. Mr. Basudeo Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that, in this case, the petitioner has been denied reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have been violated. He has also submitted that respondent No. 3 had a definite bias against the petitioner. This fact was brought to the notice of the authority by way of representation (annexure 2) in which it was also stated that, if respondent No. 3 was allowed to be a member of the Committee he would influence other members. He also laid stress that, on the facts of the case, a personal hearing should have been given to the petitioner, particularly, when the petitioner specifically prayed for it by annexure 3 to the writ application. 5. The fact that respondent No. 3 was a member of the Unfair Means Committee is not disputed. It is also not disputed that respondent No. 3 participated in the meeting of the Committee which awarded the aforesaid punishment to the petitioner. I may here refer to the report of respondent No. 3 (annexure B to the counter-affidavit). In the report, respondent No. 3 has clearly expressed his view as follows :- "It appears that the student was copying from the chit which was detected by Dr. A. K. Dutta and was recovered from him." This sentence is sufficient to show that respondent No. 3 was convinced of the fact that the petitioner adopted unfair means at the examination. In the circumstances, it was not desirable for him to have participated in the meeting. The question is whether it could reasonably be said that he was prejudiced. The question is not whether he was really biased. It is difficult to prove the state of mind of a person. Therefore, what we have to see is whether there is a reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been biased. There must be a reasonable likelihood of bias. Mere suspicion of bias is not sufficient. While deciding the question of bias, human probabilities and ordinary course of human conduct have to be taken into account. In this case, we find that respondent No. 3 was convinced from before about the guilt of the petitioner. There must be a reasonable likelihood of bias. Mere suspicion of bias is not sufficient. While deciding the question of bias, human probabilities and ordinary course of human conduct have to be taken into account. In this case, we find that respondent No. 3 was convinced from before about the guilt of the petitioner. His participation in deliberations of the meeting must have influenced other members of the Committee who came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charge of adopting unfair means at the examination. I am supported in my view by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A. K. Kraipak V/s. Union of India, ( AIR 1970 SC 150 ). The facts of that case were of course different but the proposition of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court is clearly applicable to the facts of the case. I also feel that, on the facts of the case, the petitioner should have been given a personal hearing in the case. This could have cleared some confusion. 6 Respondents have produced the alleged chit and the answer book of the petitioner. We have looked into them. The writing on the chit is so small that I could read the contents of it with the help of a magnifying glass. I also compared its contents with the answers written by the petitioner. The chit contains the quotation from Warren and Adams defining farm management besides other things. Farm management as defined by Warren and Adams has also been written by the petitioner under quotation ; but, for a few words here and there, the definition written by the petitioner tallies with the writing on the chit. But, as the petitioner has also quoted the definition, it is bound to be similar. So far as the analytical part of the answer is concerned, I have noticed that there is no such similarity between the answer written by the petitioner and the chit. The petitioner, always got first class and has obtained 38 marks more in aggregate even after leaving out Paper II marks in Agronomy than the student who secured 1st. class first in B.Sc. Aggregate IV Examination, 1973. This shows that the petitioner has always been a good student and, as such, it is likely that he remembered the quotation and could correctly answer that portion of the question. class first in B.Sc. Aggregate IV Examination, 1973. This shows that the petitioner has always been a good student and, as such, it is likely that he remembered the quotation and could correctly answer that portion of the question. Keeping in view the nature of the answer, it cannot be said that the petitioner, in fact, copied from the chit. 7. Since we have heard the case in detail and have also seen the chit and the answer book, we thought it desirable to finally decide the case instead of remanding it back. 8. In the circumstances, let a writ be issued quashing annexure 6 and directing respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to publish the result of the petitioner on the basis of the annual examination held in 1973. The application is, accordingly, allowed; but there will be no order as to costs. SHAMBHU PRASAD SINGH, J. 9 I agree.