JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - Rakesh Chandra Todariya, the petitioner appeared at the intermediate Examination of the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education (In short the Board) held in 1980 as a regular candidate from the Government Raghunath Kirti Inter College, Deoprayag. His roll No. was 82727. He had offered Civics. Economics, History, English and Hindi- The Examinations were held between 3rd April and 23rd April, 1980. On the 5th July 1980 the petitioner was declared successful by the Board and was placed in II Division, but the note appended to it mentioned that his result had been withheld. The petitioner was thereafter given a charge-sheet containing two charges upon him to show causes : (i) That the petitioner alongwith others held out a threat to Tilak Raj Baluni, teacher employed in the college on the 14-5-81. (ii) He threatened to set on fire the college building on the same date. 2. The petitioner submitted a reply denying of having given threat to Sri Tilak Kumar Baluni. The petitioner also associated that he had never threatened to set on fire the college building. He further stated that he had been involved by Tilak Raj Baluni on account of family disputes. 3. The Board cancelled the result of the petitioner of the year 180, which was communicated to him by a letter dated 26th June, 1981. In the meantime it appears that the petitioner had joined B.A. Part I in the Garhwal University. 4. The petitioners learned counsel contended before us that the order of the Board cancelling the petitioners result of the year 1980 was illegal and in excess of the powers conferred by Regulation 2 (i) of Chapter VI. This confers powers upon the Board to cancel the result of a student who is guilty of an offence of moral turpitude or indiscipline. 5. The question that arises for determination is that even if the facts stated in the charge-sheet are assumed to be correct, could the result of the petitioner be cancelled by the Board for his act which he allegedly committed after his examinations were over. From the writ petition, we find that the examinations of the petitioner were held between 3M April to 23rd April, 1980, whereas the incident occurred on the 14th May, 1980. On that date, the petitioner was not a candidate. From the writ petition, we find that the examinations of the petitioner were held between 3M April to 23rd April, 1980, whereas the incident occurred on the 14th May, 1980. On that date, the petitioner was not a candidate. His conduct as such did not form basis for the cancellation of his result of the year 1980. The charges levelled against him independent of his conduct as a candidate and accordingly the Board was not entitled under the law to take any action against him and to cancel the result. In Vishnu Kumar Dwivedi v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad (1976 AWC 455) this Court was called upon to consider a similar controversy. In that case a MR was lodged by Sri Prem Chandra Gupta in regard to the incident that occurred after the examinations were over. The Division Bench held that as the incident had no relationship with the conduct of the petitioner as a candidate, the same could not for basis for the cancellation of his result. As the view of the Court was that the alleged incident of beating stood in isolation and not necessarily connected with some thing which could be said to have taken place in the Examination Hall, the Board was not entitled to take any action against the petitioner of that case. We find close similarity between the said case arid the present one. In fact, the facts of the present case are such better than those which came up for decision before the High Court in Vishnu Kumar Dwivedi, (supra) in this case, the examinations of the petitioner were over on the 23rd April, 1980 whereas the incident occurred on the 14th May, 1980. Assuming that the petitioner had hurled abuses on the teacher and had further given threats for setting the college building to fire, the same could not constitute as a misconduct on the part of the petitioner appearing at the examination as a candidate. The power conferred by the Board by Chapter VI is only in relation to a matter which may have some bearing on the conduct of a student as a candidate. The power conferred by the Board by Chapter VI is only in relation to a matter which may have some bearing on the conduct of a student as a candidate. For attracting the power conferred on the Board if may net be strictly necessary that the incident must have happened either in the Examination Hall or within the precincts of the centre, but in the instant case the Board has absolutely no power to cancel the result of the petitioner for some thing which had been reported to in the first information report on 14th May, 1980. For these reasons, we find that the order of the Board cancelling the result is legal and is liable to be quashed. We have heard Sri P.N. Misra. Standing Counsel on behalf of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. 6. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Beard dated 26-6-81 cancelling the petitioners result of the Intermediate Examination is quashed. The Board is directed to declare the result of the petitioner forthwith. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.