JUDGMENT K.N. Seth, J. - During the session 1981-82 the petitioner was a student of class VI (Section-B) of the Government Intermediate College, Allahabad. According to the petitioner after the annual examination he was promoted and admitted in class VII B of the College. It has also been asserted that the petitioner paid his fees and has been regularly attending the classes. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that on 2ht July, 1982 he was verbally informed by his class-teacher that his result has been cancelled and he should not attend studies in Class VII. Next day, the petitioner and his father contacted the Principal who informed them that the results of a large number of students of class VI and VII have been cancelled and there had been tampering either in the answer books or in the results/mark-sheet. It has also been asserted that the petitioner had done very well in his examination and neither his answer books nor result/mark sheet had been tampered in any manner. The action of the Principal has been assailed on the ground that the result of the petitioner has been cancelled without affording him any opportunity to have his say in the matter. 3. Counter and Rejoinder Affidavits have been exchanged. In the counter-affidavit sworn by the Principal of the Govt. Intermediate College, Allahabad, it has been stated that the petitioner appeared in the six monthly and annual examinations of class VI-B hut did not pass the examination. In fact in General Science the petitioner secured only 11 marks out of 100 in the six monthly examination. It has also been denied that the petitioner was promoted and admitted to class VII-B. 4. It has also been averred that there has been interpolation in the Tabulation Register. In the paper of General Science in the final examination the petitioner secured only 33 marks out of 100 but in the Tabulation Register he is shown to have secured 55 marks which added with the 11 marks obtained in the six monthly examination has been shown to be 66 instead of 44. According to the principal, the college records do not show that the petitioner deposited any fee for class VT1-B and the question of his attending the classes in VII-B did not arise. According to the principal, the college records do not show that the petitioner deposited any fee for class VT1-B and the question of his attending the classes in VII-B did not arise. The Principal has denied the allegations that the petitioner and his father met him on 21st, July, 1982 and the petitioner was verbally informed that his result had been cancelled. According to the Principal the results of 54 students were cancelled and this w as notified on the notice-board of the college on 28-6-1982 for general information. In all these cases it was found that these students had not secured the pass marks but by interpolation and overwriting they were wrongly issued the result cards showing promoted. It has been specifically stated that he petitioners father never met the Principal in this connection. It is not necessary to refer any other fact set out in the petition and the affidavits of the petitioner and the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents as they are not relevant for deciding the points pressed for consideration in the petition. 5. Sri Paul appearing for the petitioner contended that since the result of the petitioner was cancelled the principles of natural justice required that he should have been given an opportunity to defend his case. Generally speaking the principle that before an adverse order is passed against a person opportunity should be afforded to him to meet the charges levelled against him or the facts sought to be relied upon for taking a decision adverse to his interest. The principle being so well established it is not necessary to refer to the cases which lay down the principle. However, in the present case we do not feel that any injustice has been done by not giving a show-cause notice to the petitioner or affording him an opportunity before -the impugned order was passed. The principal has produced before us the answer books of the petitioner in General Science as as the Tabulation Register. The answer books indicate that the petitioner obtained 11 marks in the six monthly examination and 33 marks in the final examination in that subject out of 100, i.e., in all 44 marks out of 200. The principal has produced before us the answer books of the petitioner in General Science as as the Tabulation Register. The answer books indicate that the petitioner obtained 11 marks in the six monthly examination and 33 marks in the final examination in that subject out of 100, i.e., in all 44 marks out of 200. He thus failed to secure pass marks, The Tabulation register shows that in the six monthly examination the petitioner obtained 11 marks but in the final examination 55 marks had been entered against the general science paper marking a total of 66. It is not the case of the college that these changes and interpolations were made by the student himself. The register itself clearly indicates that the marks obtained by the petitioner in the final examination had not been correctly entered in the Tabulation Register. This must have been done by the teacher who made entries in the Tabulation Register. In the counter-affidavit it has been averred that when this matter came to the knowledge of the Principal he set up an Inquiry committee which examined the relevant records and it was on the basis of the report of the inquiry committee that the results of these students who were wrongly declared to have been promoted were cancelled. Since there was no charge of any interpolation or tampering by the student concerned it was not at all necessary to give him a show-cause notice because he could not have possibly given any explanation with regard to the tampering and wrong entries made in the Tabulation Register, by those who were responsible for making the entries. It has not been disputed before us that the answer books which have been produced before us are the answer books of the petitioner. The stand taken by the respondents appears to be justified that large scale tampering had been done in the Tabulation Register and as a result of tampering a number of students who otherwise had failed were wrongly promoted. When this matter came to the knowledge of the principal he rightly took the step of cancellation the results. We are not satisfied that any case for interference by this Court has been made out on the ground that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before his result was cancelled. 6. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. When this matter came to the knowledge of the principal he rightly took the step of cancellation the results. We are not satisfied that any case for interference by this Court has been made out on the ground that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before his result was cancelled. 6. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.