Judgment Lalit Mohan Sharma, B. S. Sinba, JJ. 1. The petitioners in both the cases are madical students and have appeared in the examinations held by the magadh University in October, 1979. By a notification, the University has cancelled the examination in some of the papers and directed for holding cf fresh examinations. This order is under challenge. 2. The petitioners in CWJC 727 of 1980 are students of Magadh Medical college, Gaya. Their theoretical examinations in Obstetrica and Cynaecology held on 12-10 1979 and in Eye and E. N. T, have been cancelled and fresh examination have been directed to be held on 10-4-80 and 12-4-80 respectively. The order is contained in an examination communique issued by the University and published in a Patna daily newspaper on 12th and 13th march, 1980, and a copy thereof has been attached to the Writ Application as annexure 5. By the communique, M. B. B. S. second examination of Nalanada medical College, Patna, in theoretical paper of Forensic medicine, Preventive and Social medicine and Pathology has also been cancelled with direction for re-examination on 11-4-1980, 16-4-1980 and 12-4-1980 respectively. The petitioners in C. W. J. C.728 of 1980 are students of Nalanda Madical College, patna and have appeared at these examinations 10-10-1979.13-10-1979 and 15-10-1979 respectively and have challenged the communique, a copy where-of is Annexure 10 to their writ petition. On the joint request of the parties, the cases have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. In view of the urgent nature of the writ application, they were heard within three weeks of their filing and on 8-4-1980 after the close of the agreements, we dismissed the applications by the following order: "after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the writ applications, counter affidavits and other affidavits we are of the view that unfair means on large scales were used by the examinees at the cancelled examinations and that there is no merit in the points raised on behalf of the petitioners. The writ applications are accordingly dismissed, but without costs. Reasons will follow". We now proceed to give reasons in support of our view. 4 The cancelled examinations have been held at the contries, at Patna and Gaya. The writ applications are accordingly dismissed, but without costs. Reasons will follow". We now proceed to give reasons in support of our view. 4 The cancelled examinations have been held at the contries, at Patna and Gaya. The University had appointed several groups of college teachers, referred to as Flying Squads, surprise inspection of the manner in which examinations were being conducted by the Superintendents and Invigilators. Accordingly, different squads inspected the colleges during the examination hours and repeated that the examinees were indulging in large scale unfair means and recomended for cancellation of the examinations. According to their reports, the Superintendents and Invigilators were not making serious efforts to enforce discipline and the visit by the Squads were not welcome by the students. On one occasion, the displeasure was so pronounced that the students intimidated the member of the Squad and assaulted some of them and they had to be rescued with the police peip. The petitioners have challenged the report as incorrect and have prayed for quashing the examination communique and directing the respondents to publish the result on the basis of the examinations already held. 5. In support of the writ applications, the learned counsel Mr. Basudeva prasad and Mr. Prabha Shanker Misra contended that since the petitioners were not given, an opportunity of placing their case before the examination coramuique was issued, the impugned order is vitiated on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. Reliance was placed on the decisions in board of High School V/s. Ghanshyam, (AIR 1962 Supreme Court, 1110, Board of High School and Intermediate Education V/s. Kumari Chittra Srivastova, (AIR 1970 Supreme Court, 1039), Smt. S. R. Venkatarama V/s. Union of India, (AIR 1970 Supreme Court, 49), Ajit Singh V/s. Ranchi University (AIR 1964 patna, 291), S. C. Das Gupta V/s. Bijoyranjan Rakshit (AIR 1953 Calcutta, 2128)and Nripendranath Goswami V/s. Registrar, Gauhati University (AIR 1967 assam, 5 ). A perusal of the judgments in these cases, however, indicates that they are not applicable to the present cases and the decision which appears to be relevant was given in Bihar S. F. Board V/s. Chandra Sinha (AIR 1970 supreme Court, 1269 ). 6. The facts in that case were similar to those of the cases before us and the ratio or that case appears to be fully applicable. 6. The facts in that case were similar to those of the cases before us and the ratio or that case appears to be fully applicable. The secondary school examination at which the respondent Subhas Chandra and others had appeared was held in March, 1969 and the results were published in July, but the results of the examinees at Hanswadih Centre were not released on 30th August, 1969, communique appeared in a daily newspaper announcing the cancellation of the examination of this Centre on the ground of practice of unfair means at a large scale. The examinees were, however, allowed to appear at the supplementary examination which is held every year according to the rules. The respondents filed a writ application in this court contending, inter alia, that they were entitled to be heard before the impugned order could have been passed. The High Court agreed with then and relyiug upon the decision in board of High School V/s. Ghanshyam (AIR 1962 Supreme Court, 1110) quashed the order on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that no principle of natural justice had been, violate. The High Courts decision was accordingly set aside and the writ petition was dismissed. It was pointed out in paragraph 13 of the Judgment as follows: - "this is not a case or any particular individual who is being charged with the adoption of unfair means, but of the conduct of all examinees or at least a cast-majority of them at a particular centre. If it is not a question of charging any one individually with unfairmeans but to condem the examination as ineffective for the purpose it was held, must the Board give an opportunity to all candidates ta represent their case. We think not. It was not necessary for the Board to give an opportunity to the candidates if the examination as a whole were being cancelled. " The present case is quite similar and is fully covered by the decision. 7 In the cases relied upon on behalf of the petitioners, particular examinee or examinees were held to be guilty of improper conduct, and were punished without being heard by the authority concerned, and in these circumstances it was held that the rule of audi alteram partem applied. 7 In the cases relied upon on behalf of the petitioners, particular examinee or examinees were held to be guilty of improper conduct, and were punished without being heard by the authority concerned, and in these circumstances it was held that the rule of audi alteram partem applied. In the case of Subhas Chandra Sinha (supra), the entire examination at a particular centre had been cancelled, as has been done in the present case, although the order was made without giving an opportunity to the examinees concerned show cause, the Supreme Court declined to grant any relief. The principle appears to be that if an examination is cancelled and re-examination in ordered without condemning any particular student which may prejudice him, the order is neither quasi-judicial in nature, as urged before us, nor is such which may be said to cause civil consequence. It is merely a step taken in course of conducting the examination, without causing any injury, capable of giving rise to a right to the students to be heard. 8. In Board of High School V/s. Ghanshyam (AIR 1962 Supreme Court, 1110) the result of three students was published and they were declared to have passed. Thereafter, they prosecuted further studies and then their results were not oniy cancelled but they were debarred from appearing at the examina tion to be held next year. In this context, the question as to whether the-authorities were under a duty to act judicially or not was examined and it was observed that the nature of alleged misconduct found by the Committee of the board was serious in nature, amounting to impersonation, commission of fraud and prejury and the committees decision could even lead to ihe prosecution of the examinees in courts. It was accordingly held that the committee while exercising its power was acting quasi-judicially and the principles of natural justice requiring the examinee to be heard applied. The decision of the calcutta High Court in S. S. Das Gupta V/s. Bijoyranjan Rakshit, (AIR 1953 calcutta, 212) was similar inasmuch as the entire examination had not been cancelled and only the examination of some of the examinees was cancelled and they were directed to appear in fresh examination. 9. The decision of the calcutta High Court in S. S. Das Gupta V/s. Bijoyranjan Rakshit, (AIR 1953 calcutta, 212) was similar inasmuch as the entire examination had not been cancelled and only the examination of some of the examinees was cancelled and they were directed to appear in fresh examination. 9. In Ajit Singh V/s. Ranchi University (AIR 1964 Patna, 291), on which great relianee was placed, allegations were made against the individual petitioners of having used unfair means at the University examination and orders were passed debarring them from appearing any University examination, in future, for certain periods without giving them an opportunity to prove their innocence. In Nripsndranath Goswami V/s. Gauhati University (AIR 1967 assam and Nagaland, 3) the petitioner was conferred B. A. degree and he got admission into Post Graduate class. It was thereafter that the degree of the petitioner was cancelled and he was expelled from the University for taking part in a students violent agitation. In both these cases, the concerned students had been punished without being heard and, therefore, the decisions are not applicable to the present case. Here they are merely required to sit at a fresh examination and this decision has been taken before the results of the cancelled examinations are known. 10. In the case of Board of High School and Intermediate Education V/s. Kumari Chitra Srivastava (AIR 1970 Supreme Court, 1039) also the impugned order was interpreted by the Supreme Court as one imposing a penalty and the appellant Board was said to have exercised a quasi-judicial function. The case in Smt. N. R. Venkataraman V/s. Union of India (AIR 1979 Supreme Court, 49) was not relating to cancellation of any examination. The two decisions, therefore, are not relevant. 11. It was suggested at the bar that in view of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi V/s. Union of India (AIR 1978 Supreme court 597) and Mohinder Singh Gill V/s. Chief Election Commissioner (A. I. R.1978 Supreme Court 851) the decision in Subhas Chander cannot be considered to be good law now. We do not find any ground to take such a view. Subhas Chandars case was cited before the Supreme Court in Mohinder singh Gills case as it appears from paragraph 58 of the Judgment. We do not find any ground to take such a view. Subhas Chandars case was cited before the Supreme Court in Mohinder singh Gills case as it appears from paragraph 58 of the Judgment. The case was considered at some length in paragraph 69 and it was held that the ratio in that case was not applicable to Mohinder Singh Gills case which was in connection with cancellation of an election. The decision in Ghanshyam das Gupta, which had been distinguished in Subhas Chanders case and beld as not to be applicable where the whole University examination is cancelled, was also taken note of in Mohinder Singh Gills case (supra) in the following words : - "the case was distinguished in Subhas Chander, the differentia being that in one case the right exercised was of the Examining Body to cancel its own examination since it was satisfied that the examination was not properly conducted. " We, therefore, hold that the decision in Subhas Chanders case still holds good and fully covers the present writ applications. Accordingly, we reject the petitioners argument that as they were not heard, (he impugned communique was illegal. 12 This, however, does not mean that the University is free to pass any order in regard to cancellation of examinations arbitrarily or for fanciful reasons. To say that the order in this regard is not vitiated on the ground that the examinees are not given an opportunity to place and prove their case, is not tantamount to holding that the principles of natural justice have no application. It was observed to Maneka Gandhi V/s. Union of India (supra) that natural justice is a great humanizing principle intended to uphold fairness and can be summarised as being fairplay in action. But on that principle it does not necessarily follow that in every case everybody who may be concerned with a proposed order or action has to be given a bearing. In chairman Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines V/s. Ramji A. I. R.1977 Supreme Court, 965, Mr. justice V. R. Krishna Iyer held that natural justice is no unruly horse, nor a judicial cure-all. In chairman Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines V/s. Ramji A. I. R.1977 Supreme Court, 965, Mr. justice V. R. Krishna Iyer held that natural justice is no unruly horse, nor a judicial cure-all. If fairness is shown by the decision maker to the man proceeded against, the form, features and the fundamantals of such essential procedural propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansions of natural justice, without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case was deprecated. In order to find as to whether the university in the present cases acted fairly we permitted the learned counsel for the petitioners to address us on the facts, on the basis of which the impugned decision was taken. Mr. Prasad and Mr. Mishra accordinly argued with reference to the evidence in the case at some length and we are satisfied that the authorities concerned noted fairly. It was suggested that since the examinees were demanding expedititious on publication of their results and also went on strike, the University authorities were prejudiced against them. We do not find any merit in this argument. A demand by the students for an early publication of the results on the basis of the cancelled examinations was made later than the reports made by the members of the Flying Squads stating about the students resorting to large scale unfair means. Further, the teachers constituting different squads were not responsible for the publication of the results or for the delay and cannot be assumed to have developed any bias due to the demand of the examinees made against the other University authorities. No other reason has been suggested for assuming that the authorities might have acted mala fide in the present matter. In the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that all the relevant facts and circumstances had been coolly considered and properly examined before cancelling the examinations and we accept the statement as correct. The relevant facts are briefly stated below. 13. On 10-10-79, three college teachers in different subjects forming a Flying Squad visited the Nalanda Medical College centre and reported that "there was no sitting arrangement and examinees took their seats according to their convenience. The relevant facts are briefly stated below. 13. On 10-10-79, three college teachers in different subjects forming a Flying Squad visited the Nalanda Medical College centre and reported that "there was no sitting arrangement and examinees took their seats according to their convenience. We found that the examinees were freely using chits, books and note-books on mass scale in the presence of the invigilators. There was no resistance from the authority concerned. (See paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit of respondents 2 to 6 at para 70-71 of the paper book in C. W. J. C.728 of 1980 ). Similar reports were made by the Flying Squads inspecting the college on 13-10-79 and 16-10-79. The names of the teachers have been given in the counter affidavit and it appears that different groups submitted simillar reports. The copies of the reports in regard to what happened on 13-10-79 and 16-10-79 are Annexures D/2 and F/2 respectively. Similar reports were submitted by different Flying Squads with respect to the examinations held in Magadh Medical College, Gaya, on 12-10-79 and 15-10-79 (See Annexure C/3 at page 53 and Annexure D/3 at page 57 of the records of C. W. J. C.727 of 1980 ). Note was taken of these matters in the first instance by the Syndicate and a request was made to the government to conduct medical examinations of the two colleges through the Government agency. The question was thereafter considered and decision taken by Examination Board, Vice-Chancellor and Chancellor, and details in these regards will be mentioned hereafter while dealing with other arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioners. During the course of the argument, the counsel for the University stated that the relevant files were available in the court room and the respondents offered them for being examined by the court and the counsel of the petitioners, if the court so permitted. However, we did not consider it necessary or expedient to examine the entire file in this regard, as we felt satisfied that the University authotities had considered all the relevant facts and circumstances before taking the impugned decision. One document on the file was, however, examined for verifying whether the Vice-Chancellor had, in facts, passed orders in its present matter. The details in this regard will be mentioned below in its due place. 14. Mr. One document on the file was, however, examined for verifying whether the Vice-Chancellor had, in facts, passed orders in its present matter. The details in this regard will be mentioned below in its due place. 14. Mr. Basudeva Prasad appearing in support of C. W. J. C.727/80 contended that the report Ext. C/3 with respect to the inspection on 12-10-79 does not indicate that unfair means were used by students. The report stated that the gate of the entrance was locked and it took about 10 minutes to get the same opened after teachers of the Flying Squad reached the place. When they entered the examination hall, the attitude of the examinees appeared to be hostile. There was a small room attached to the examination hall which was full of note-books and loose papers. The Flying Squard got the room locked which led to violent protest by students who started hurling abuses and intimidating the teachers. Ultimately, some of the examinees assaulted one of the members of the Squad dr. R. Singh. With the intervention of the invigilators, the Flying Squad escaped to the principals room which was surrounded by rowdy elements. Help was asked for by phone and ultimately they were rescued on the arrival of the armed police led by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Sadar S. D. O. Mr. Prasad said that the students might have given a few slaps to one of the members of the Flying Squad and might have roughly handled the others, but for these acts (assuming but not admitting them to be true) on the part of some of the students, the guilty one could have been punished, but the entire examination could not be validly cancelled. We do not agree with the learned counsel that the report does not give the materials on which an inference about the students using unfair means could be drawn. The facts, as indicated by the report, furnish sufficient material to some to such a conclusion. So far as the other reports are concerned, in regard to the cancelled examination, they expressly state that the students on a large scale were consulting chits, loose papers, note books etc. for answering the question, the invigilators were co-operating with the examinee in adopting unfair means, the police force was sitting idle and the Centre Superintendent was reluctant and ineffective in enforcing discipline during the examinations. for answering the question, the invigilators were co-operating with the examinee in adopting unfair means, the police force was sitting idle and the Centre Superintendent was reluctant and ineffective in enforcing discipline during the examinations. After going through the detailed affidavits and annexures, we are satisfied that the conclusion reached by the authorities concerned about the use of unfair means is correct. Mr. Prabha shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners in C. W. J. C.728 of 1980 suggested that since the reports regarding the two colleges were limped together for consideration, the decision to cancel the examinations held in nalanda Medical College, Patna, is vitiated. We have gone through all the relevant documents separately college wise at great length with the learned counsel and we do not think that any irrelevent matter has been considered in regard to any of the cancelled examinations in question. 15. On behalf of the petitioners in C. W. J. C.727 of 1980, it was further agrued that the Bihar State Inter-University Examination Board has laid down certain guidelines in regard to the conduct of examinations, as mentioned in paragraph 16 of the writ application, and referred to as "the rule". By paragraph 1 (b) of the said "rule", the results are directed to be published within 10 days of the commencement of the examination or within 5 days from the completion of the examination whichever is earlier, and the cancellation of examination is enjoined to be announced by paragraph 2 (b) "as soon as the report" of a Flying Squad is made. The contention is that as a decision to cancel the examinations was not taken immediately after receipt of the reports of the Flying Squad, such a decision could not be taken later. Mr. Prasad urged that the expression "as soon as" means immediately and not "as soon as it may be possible or practicable. " the delay by itself, independent of consideration of the so-called "rule" has also been emphasised by both the learned counsel for the petitioners as serious, and as depriving the authorities from exercising their power. In reply, the respondents have denied the existence of any rule or order by the State Inter-University Examination Board as asserted in the writ application, and the petitioners were not able to show before us satisfactorily that any such order or rule was ever made or passed. In reply, the respondents have denied the existence of any rule or order by the State Inter-University Examination Board as asserted in the writ application, and the petitioners were not able to show before us satisfactorily that any such order or rule was ever made or passed. Besides, the arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioners are self-inconsistent. On the one hand, they claim that a full-fledged enquiry should have been conducted giving them opportunity to lead evidence in support of their case that no unfair means were used and, on the other hand, they suggest that the examinations could have been cancelled immediately after receipt of the reports by Flying Squads. The argument must be rejected for several reasons, firstly, the "rule" as pleaded has not been proved to be in existence ; secondly, the expression "as soon as" cannot be interpreted to mean immdeiately in the present context, and it is well established that an expression has to be construed in the context in which it is used, and lastly, the petitioners themselves were instrumental in delaying the decision at least partly, as discussed below. 16. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit of the respondents that after the decision to cancel the examinations was taken, the students started putting pressure on the University through political leaders, not to hold fresh examinations and to publish their results on the basis of the examinations already held and later started an agitation. They filed an application to the then Chief Minister, a copy whereof has been attached as annexture, and the Chief Minister requested the Chancellor to reconsider the entire matter. The Chancellor then referred the matter to the university against for reconsideration. Upon this, the Examination Board of the University decided to take the advice of the Chancellor himself. The Chancellor held a conference with the Vice-Chancellor and the Dean, faculty of Medicines and the entire matter was discussed in detail with reference to the records. He thereafter recorded his views, as quoted in paragraph 15 of the counter-affidavit at pages 43 and 44 of paper book in C. W. J. C.727 of 1980, agreeing with the earlier decision to cancel the examinations and to hold fresh examinations quickly. This naturally consumed some more time. The University has also given other reasons as to why the decisions to cancel the examination could not be taken earlier. This naturally consumed some more time. The University has also given other reasons as to why the decisions to cancel the examination could not be taken earlier. It is, inter alia, mentioned that the University office was closed for several weeks due to Parliamentary elections. Besides before taking a final decision, the authorities concerned had to take into account all the facts, circumstances and the relevant materials pertinent to the point The Medical Council of India has also written to the university about the use of unfair means which was also considered. In the circumstances, we are satisfied with the explanation given by the respondents in regard to the delay and we do not think that the cancellation of the examinations is vitiated on that account. 17. The only other point which has been canvassed on behalf of the petitioners is that the decision to cancel the examinations had not been taken by proper authority and is therefore, ultra vires. Sec.29 of the bihar State Universities Act, 1976 refers to the Examination Board of the university consisting of the Vice-Chancellor as Chairman and Deans of Faculties with certain exceptions, and the sub-section (2) says that the examination Board shall render advice to the Vice-Chancellor on the conduct of examination etc. , publication of examination results, and submission of such results to the Academic Council, and the Vice Chancellor shall be competent to take the ultimate decision. The final say in the matter rests with the Vice-Chancellor. It has, therefore, been contended that as the Chancellor has no jurisdiction whatsoever, in the matter of examinations, the impugned communique is without jurisdiction as having been issued at his instance is further urged that the function of the Examination Board is merely advisory, and not to take a final decision by itself, as has been done in the present case and in absence of a decision in this regard by the Vice-Chancellor, the order cancelling the examinations should be set aside. This point was not taken in the writ applications, but was argued on the basis of the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents. The University, then, filed supplementary affidavit stating that as a matter of facts, the final decision was taken by the Vice-Chancellor. Mr. This point was not taken in the writ applications, but was argued on the basis of the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents. The University, then, filed supplementary affidavit stating that as a matter of facts, the final decision was taken by the Vice-Chancellor. Mr. B. C. Ghose, counsel for the University, said that the facts in this regard were not accurately mentioned in the counter-affidavit, as a plea on this basis was not taken in the writ applications. The statements in the counter-affidavit about the Examination Board taking a decision were made, according to Mr. Ghose, in a loose manner. The statement in the supplementary affidavit was seriously challenged on the part of the petitioners as incorrect and, therefore, Mr. Ghose invited the Bench to examine the relevant file, which was already with him. We acceded to the prayer and verified the fact and found it correct. The file was made available to the counsel for the petitioners in both the cases and they examined the same in open court in our presence. An affidavit in reply was also filed criticising the conduct of the Universitys advocate in placing the file before the court. We are unable to understand the criticism and we do not find anything "unethical" in the conduct of the counsel for the respondents in inviting the court and the petitioners counsel to examine the relevant records. From the file it appears that long notes were submitted to the Vice-Chancellor along with the advice of the Examination Board to cancel the examinations and the vice-Chancellor approved the suggestion and signed his order on 1-2-80. After the advice of the Chancellor, as mentioned above, was later received, the matter was again placed before the Vice-Chancellor who took a final decision consents with his previous one. We, therefore, hold that final decision for cancelling the examinations was taken by the vice-Chancellor. Besides, it cannot be forgotten that the Vice-Chancellor was the Chairman of the Examination Board which had, in the first instance, considered the matter in detail and was of the view that the examinations should be cancelled. 18. It was suggested on behalf of the petitioners that as the Chancellor has no jurisdiction to give any direction or advice in the matter, the final decision must be held to be vitiated in law as being influenced by his views. 18. It was suggested on behalf of the petitioners that as the Chancellor has no jurisdiction to give any direction or advice in the matter, the final decision must be held to be vitiated in law as being influenced by his views. Reliance was placed on the decision in Pratabpur Company V/s. Cane Commissioner, Bihar, AIR 1970 S. C.1896. The point has no merit, as the decision to cancel the examinations had been taken by the vice-Chancellor on 1-2-80 before the Chancellor came in the picture, and further because the Chancellor was not associated in the question at the instance of the Vice-Chancellor or the other authorities he was requested by the Chief Minister to intervene at the instance of the students themselves, for the purpose of reconsideration of the matter. The Chancellor in these circumstances took interest in the question and he cannot be validly criticised for so doing and in any event, not by the petitioners. 19. For all these reasons, we have dismissed the writ applications as mentioned above. Writ petitions dismissed.