JUDGMENT 1. THIS Rule is directed against cancellation of the petitioner's examination in History and Political Science held at the B. A. Part I Examination, 1973. 2. THE petitioner appeared at the b. A. Part I Examination in Arts from kandi Raj College in the year 19/3 as an external candidate being Rod No. Kandi External I (Ars) B. A. Part I 1973 from the Calcutta University. The controller of Examination of Calcutta university by its memo. No. 73/34832 sent to the petitioner the mark-sheet obtained by him. It appears from the said mark-sheet that the examinations of Political Science and History of the petitioner stood cancelled and it further transpired that the petitioner secured pass marks in English and bengali. From the said mark-sheet it appears that the examinations held on 7. 9. 73 and 12. 9. 73 for Political Science and History were cancelled in respect of all examinees of that centre. The reasons of such cancellation were not disclosed nor any general notification was issued by the University declaring cancellation of the examination of all examinees in respect of those two subjects. Thereafter the petitioner made a representation on 21. 6. 74 to the Vice-Chancellor wherein the petitioner prayed for review of the results by examining those two subjects. No reply was given to the said representation. Subsequent reminders were sent without any result. On 16. 12. 74 the petitioner personally met the Vice-Chancellor. Thereupon the Vice-Chancellor referred the matter to the Controller of Examinations and verbally assured the petitioner that justice would be done. It is alleged by the petitioner in the petition that no enquiry was held by any competent authority or any committee or sub-committee in respect of: the examinations held on 7th and 12th September, 1973. No charge sheet was framed against the petitioner and no opportunity was given to him to show cause against the cancellation of those two examinations. The petitioner was never directed to appear before any committee or any competent authority to furnish explanation. It is also stated in the petition that the petitioner never adopted unfair means nor there was any allegation of unfairness against the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by such cancellation of his examination with respect to two subjects moved this Court under article 226 of the Constitution and obtained the present Rule. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. The petitioner being aggrieved by such cancellation of his examination with respect to two subjects moved this Court under article 226 of the Constitution and obtained the present Rule. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and affirmed by Sankari Prosad banerjee, Registrar of the University of Calcutta, wherein it is stated as there was a case of mass copying in the kandiraj College Examination Centre, the results of about 461 examinees had been cancelled. It transpired that there was mass copying in the centre both on 7th and 12th September, 1973, when the examinations of B. A. Part I examination in Political Science and history papers were going on. At the examination held at the said centre unfair means were adopted on a very large scale by a large number of students and the examination on both occasions as indicated above had been conducted in an atmosphere which was not at all congenial to the enforcement of the discipline which had to be observed in conducting examination. Accordingly, the results of all examinees of the said centre were cancelled. The petitioner might have made aj representation to the Vice-Chancellor but there is no obligation on the part of the vice-Chancellor to reply to the said representation. As the examinees in a body resorted to breach of discipline, there was no necessity or obligation to charge individual examinees with individual charge sheets and there cannot be any question of giving opportunities to individual examinees to be heard prior to cancellation of their results. Accordingly there was no occasion for calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Board of Discipline or its sub-committee for explaining his conduct is alleged. 3. MR. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that there was no general notification or order issued by the University cancelling the examinations held on 7. 9. 73 and 12. 9. 73 at the Kandi Centre. The petitioner was not afforded any reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the cancellation of the examinations. It is further contended that the University being the quasi judicial authority is bound to adjudicate the matter in accordance with the rules and the principles of natural justice. 4. I asked Mr. 9. 73 and 12. 9. 73 at the Kandi Centre. The petitioner was not afforded any reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the cancellation of the examinations. It is further contended that the University being the quasi judicial authority is bound to adjudicate the matter in accordance with the rules and the principles of natural justice. 4. I asked Mr. Roy who is appearing on behalf of the University to produce any order of the Vice-Chancellor or of any of the competent authority to show that the examination of 461 examinees had been cancelled with respect to the examinations held on 7th and 12. 9. 73. Mr. Roy failed to produce any such order. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition it is stated that it transpired that there was a mass copying in the said centre. But no material was placed before me to show that on the report of the officer-in-charge of the centre or of the Principal of the said college or from a report, of any invigilator, the authorities came to know that there was a mass copying in the said centre. In the Board of High school and Intermediate Education, u. P. v. Kumari Chittra Srivastava reported in A. I. R. 1970 S. C. 1039, the supreme Court held that the Board of high School and Intermediate examination in cancelling the examination exercised quasi judicial functions. The supreme Court observed : principles of natural justice are to some minds burdensome but this price a small price indeed has to be paid if we desire a society governed by the rule of law. Mr. Roy appearing on behalf of the respondents drew my attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in board of High School and Intermediate education, U. P. v. Bagleshwar Prasad, reported in A. I. R. 1966 S. C. 875, wherein the Supreme Court observed that in dealing with writ petitions against the orders of the Universities or Education boards, cancelling the examination results of candidates who were declared to have been passed, it is necessary to bear in mind that educational institutions like the Universities or the boards, set up enquiry committee to deal with the problem posed by the adoption of unfair means by candidates, and normally it is within the jurisdiction of such domestic tribunals to decide all relevant questions in the light of the evidence adduced before them. In the matter of the adoption of unfair means, direct evidence may sometimes be available but cases may arise where direct evidence is not available and the question will have to be considered in the light of probabilities and circumstantial evidence. This problem which educational institutions have to face from time to time is a serious problem and unless there is justification to do so, Courts should be slow to interfere with the decisions of domestic Tribunals appointed by educational bodies like the universities. In dealing with the validity of the impugned orders passed by Universities under Article 226, the High Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision in question; its jurisdiction is limited and though it is true that if the impugned order is not supported by any evidence at all, the High Court would be justified to quash that order. But the conclusion that the impugned order is not supported by any evidence must be reached after considering the question as to whether probabilities and circumstantial evidence do not justify the said conclusion. Enquiries held by domestic tribunals in such cases must, no doubt, be fair and students against whom charges are framed must be given adequate opportunities to defend themselves, and in holding such enquiries, the tribunals must scrupulously follow rules of natural justice, but it would not be reasonable to import into these enquiries all considerations which govern criminal trials in ordinary courts of law. 5. I am unable to follow how the said decision is of any assistance to the respondents in the present case. 6. IN the instant case there was no enquiry either by any tribunal or any officer of the university or by any authority whatsoever. In Bagleswar prasad's case, as referred to hereinabove, a sub-committee was appointed by the Board, the charges were framed against, the students and explanations were called for. The sub-committee, however, was not satisfied with the explanation and came to the conclusion that the candidates had used unfair means. As a result of the report made by the sub-committee the Board passed an order cancelling the results of the candidates. In the instant case no charge was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was not asked for any explanation. As a result of the report made by the sub-committee the Board passed an order cancelling the results of the candidates. In the instant case no charge was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was not asked for any explanation. There was no report either by the local authorities of the Kandi Raj Centre that unfair means were adopted with respect to those two examinations viz., History and Political Science held on 7th and 12th September, 1973. As I have already said that the respondents failed to produce either any public notification or any order cancelling the examination of the petitioner and all other candidates for the examinations held on those two days. Even the petitioner's representation was not replied to. It is stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that there is no obligation on the part of the Vice Chancellor to give any reply to such representation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order of cancellation of the examination of the petitioner cannot be sustained and, accordingly, it is quashed. The respondent University shall be at liberty to hold an enquiry against the petitioner after giving him formal charges and opportunity of being heard and thereafter, if it is so advised, the respondent university would be competent to pass any order. 7. IN the result, this Rule is made absolute. The impugned order of cancellation be quashed. Let a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents not to give effect to such cancellation of the examination of the petitioner. There will be no order for costs. The prayer for stay of operation of the order is refused.