JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - The petitioner appeared in the High School Examination as a regular candidate in 1980 and was declared to have passed the aforesaid examination. Later on he was served with a show cause notice in which is was stated that he had used unfair means in Mathematics second paper and that be should appear before an Enquiry Committee on 26-2-1980. The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Committee and was informed that there were charges of using unfair means in solving question no. 10 Ka and 4 Ka. Petitioner denied having used unfair means and pleaded that the charge levelled against him were not correct. Principal petitioner of the College on 31-1-1981 informed the petitioner that the Secretary Board of High School and Intermediate Education has intimated that the petitioner's examination for the year 1980 has been cancelled because of bis using unfair means. 2. In the present writ petition the decision of the respondent no. 1 cancelling the result of the petitioner of the High School Examination of the year 1980 has been challenged on the ground that there was no evidence to substantiate the aforesaid charge and that the petition's result has been cancelled arbitrarily merely on surmises and conjectures. The Board of High School was given time to file a counter-affidavit Counter-affidavit was, however, not filed but the respondent-Board has produced before us the entire original record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 3. We have gone through the record produced by the Board. On a perusal of the record we find that the charge against the petitioner was that while solving question no. 4 (ka) and 10 (ka) of Mathematics second paper, help from external source has been taken. It may be stated that the aforesaid charge was levelled on the basis of certain mistakes which had been committed by the petitioner in solving the aforesaid two questions. In the charge-sheet the precise charges, which have been mentioned are as follows : - (1) 4 (ka) chitr men oo Dahin hei uppatti likhi hei ? (2) 10 (ka) chitr men wa nahia hei. Ek asthaac par 3/15 ke aasthaan par 3/13 fikba hei. From the charge-sheet we find that the petitioner iD reply to the aforesaid charges has written an Explanation as follows ka aur kha kea leech men ocu hei. (2) 10 (ka) chitr men wa nahia hei. Ek asthaac par 3/15 ke aasthaan par 3/13 fikba hei. From the charge-sheet we find that the petitioner iD reply to the aforesaid charges has written an Explanation as follows ka aur kha kea leech men ocu hei. Sameiy kam tha ees liayea sbeghrta men 15 likha gayaa tathaa dashmalava wa cbitr men pa bendu hei tathaa eesmen deeyaa gayaa hei kee turnen aank chet sadhan prayaagh keeyaa hei menea naka) nahin ke tatha yeha aarop galnt hei. From the original record we find that-the opinion of the expert was also sought in connection with the charges levelled against the petitioner and in respect of question no. 4 ka could be cancelled as the students normally cram the theories. The expert however, was of the opinion that the charge levelled against the petitioner in respect of question do. 10 ka was proved to the hilt. From the original record it, therefore, becomes apparent that the petitioner's result has been conceded on the basis of the charge levelled against him in respect of question no. 10 (ka). 4. Normally the matter regarding the sufficiency of evidence for finding out whether a candidate has used unfair means will fall within the domain of the experts and this court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution will be alone to interfere with he decision of the experts. Unless the decision can be called to be perverse or based on no evidence, Recently, a Full Bench of this Court in Ghazanfar Rashid v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education (1979 A. W. C. 360) has laid down the scope of interference by this Court in cases of use of unfair means. Unless the decision can be called to be perverse or based on no evidence, Recently, a Full Bench of this Court in Ghazanfar Rashid v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education (1979 A. W. C. 360) has laid down the scope of interference by this Court in cases of use of unfair means. Later on, a Division Bench of this Court in Harish Chandra Tevari and others v. the Board of High School and Intermediate Education Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad through its Secretary 1981 Education Cases 106 : 1981 UPLBEC 294 (DB) had also an occasion to consider the aforeresaid question and has laid down : - "There is, however, another test which may be regarded as more dependable in ascertaining whether there was copying and that lest is the nature of the common mistake shared..............In other words, if the megnitude of the mistake committed is such that the answers written by the candidate sound like on healers, to use a colonial expression, it would make the conclusion irresistible that copying had been done." 5. The only thing which has. thus, to be seen is as to whether there were such mistakes committed by the petitioner in solving question no. 10 (ka) which irresistibly lead to the conclusion that he must have copied, the answer of the aforesaid question from some external source. The answer book of the petitioner has been produced before us. The charge in respect of the aforesaid question consists of two parts. The first part mentions that in the figure made by the petitioner in answer to the aforesaid question the word `pa' had not been written. From the perusal of the answer book we find that the petitioner while answering the question has mentioned that the figure (Ka, Kha, Ga. Da) is a conical that. However, from the figure we find it the words Ka, Kha, Ga have been written but the word pa has not been mentioned in the figure. We find that even if the letter Pa had been written in the figure that would not have any relevance for solving the problem as no reference had to be made to that letter. However, from the figure we find it the words Ka, Kha, Ga have been written but the word pa has not been mentioned in the figure. We find that even if the letter Pa had been written in the figure that would not have any relevance for solving the problem as no reference had to be made to that letter. The non-mentioning of the letter Pa in the figure thus by no stretch of imagination could lead to the conclusion that it was a mistake of such an order which could not have been committed by the petitioner unless he had taken help from some external source. The letter (Pa) may have been committed to be written in the figure either by oversight or as the petitioner said that he was in a hurry an there was lack of time in solving the paper. 6. The second part of the charge mentions that at one place instead 3 1.5 the petitioner had written 3/1.3. From a bare perusal of the answer to the aforesaid question it becomes clear that the decimal had been omitted only at one place in the answer given by the petitioner and it is not impossible that a person may forget to put the decimal either by inadvertence or when he is in burry. At every other place in the solution, the decimal had been rightly placed and the answer of the solution had been found to be correct. The non placing of the decimal at one place, thus, also could not lead to the irresistible conclusion that the petitioner must have taken help from external source for answer to the aforesaid question. In our opinion, the answer to question no. i0 (Ka) did not provide intrinsic evidence which could lead to the conclusion that the petitioner must have used unfair means. There is no other evidence against the petitioner to the effect that be bad used unfair means. The conclusion arrived at is, thus, based on no evidence. 7. For the reasons stated above this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of respondent-Board cancelling the result or the petitioner for the High School Examination of the year 1980, as communicated to him vide annexure I to the writ petition is quash. However, in the circumstance of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.