Judgement SATISH CHANDRA, C. J.:- The petitioner was a student of B. Com. (Part I) of the University of Allahabad. He appeared at the examination for it in May, 1982. The examination for the second paper, namely, mathematics was held on May 17, 1982. At this examination the invigilator found that the petitioner was in possession of some unauthorised material. He reported the matter. A few days later, on May 20, 1982, a notice was issued requiring the petitioner to show cause why his result should not be cancelled and why he should not be debarred from appearing at subsequent examination. The petitioner submitted his explanation. The University authorities had constituted a sub-committee to deal with the cases of use of unfair means at examinations. This Committee considered the entire material relating to the petitioner. It came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of using unfair means at the examination. The Committee by an order of Nov. 13, 1982, cancelled the petitioners result and debarred him from appearing at the subsequent examination of 1983. 2. It appears that the University authorities got news that the second paper of B. Com. (Part I), that is to say, of mathematics, had been leaked out. On this the University authorities cancelled the examination in that paper as a whole, and on May 31, 1982 announced that the candidates will be examined again in the mathematics paper on June 9, 1982. 3. Some students filed a writ petition and obtained an order postponing the examination. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed. The University authorities held the examination of B. Com. (Part I) in the second paper (Mathematics) on July 21, 1982. The petitioner was permitted to appear at that examination. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the examination of mathematics paper itself was cancelled by the University authorities, they were not competent to take disciplinary action for use of unfair means at that examination. When the University authorities cancelled the examination as such, it cannot be said that the petitioner had used unfair means at a valid examination of the University. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the University urged that the University had not cancelled the examination of Mathematics paper. The examination in this paper was held, but its result was cancelled, because the examination was unfair in the sense that the question paper had been prematurely leaked out. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the University urged that the University had not cancelled the examination of Mathematics paper. The examination in this paper was held, but its result was cancelled, because the examination was unfair in the sense that the question paper had been prematurely leaked out. Since the examination was in fact held, use of unfair means at such an examination could well be taken cognizance of and adequate punishment meted out to the guilty student. 6. Section 7 (4) of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973, provides that the University shall have the power and duty to hold examinations for, and to grant and confer degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions to and on persons. 7. Section 29 contemplates the constitution of an Examination Committee. Sub-section (4) of Section 29 confers power on the Examination Committee or its delegatee to "debar an examinee from future examinations of the University, if in its or his opinion, such examinee is guilty of using unfair means at any such examination". 8. It will be seen that the relevant provisions speak of use of unfair means at an examination held by the University. It is implicit in these provisions that an examination should be conducted or held by the University and at such an examination an examinee may be guilty of using unfair means. 9. The examination referred to in these provisions in the examination held or conducted by the University for conferring degrees or diplomas or other academic distinctions. Therefore, the examination, ex hypothesi, should be one which is taken into account for conferment of degrees, diplomas etc. 10. The University holds examinations in order to appraise the worth and merit of every candidate. The University is responsible for maintenance of proper standards of education. If the University, as an examining body, finds that a particular examination was not properly conducted, in the sense that the object of the examination has failed, for instance, by mass scale copying by the examinees or by premature leakage of paper, it could very well cancel its own examination and direct that the examination in that particular paper will be held again. 11. In the present case the University authorities found that the mathematics paper had been prematurely leaked out. For that reason they cancelled it and directed that it will be held again on a future date. 11. In the present case the University authorities found that the mathematics paper had been prematurely leaked out. For that reason they cancelled it and directed that it will be held again on a future date. Though the learned counsel appearing for the University emphasised that the examination was not cancelled, but only the result was cancelled, he did not produce the actual order. 12. In the background of the provisions relating to use of unfair means and its consequences, it should be borne in mind that the cancellation of result is of individual candidates, inter alia for using unfair means. But when due to premature leakage of a particular paper, the event of an examination in that paper itself is cancelled, it is improper to call it cancellation of the result, because the factum of giving of that examination itself becomes irrelevant, redundant. The answer books of none of the candidates are examined or assessed. 13. When the result of a particular candidate is cancelled the examination held for the various papers for the particular course remains in existence as a recognisable entity. The examination of all such papers is enforceable and operative. It is utilized for assessing the worth of other candidates who have not used unfair means and whose results have not been cancelled. But where the holding of an examination in a particular paper or papers is itself nullified by the University, it is incorrect to say that the result in that examination has been cancelled. The correct way of putting it is that the examination in that paper itself has been cancelled or quashed, with the result that the fact that an examination in that paper was held is of historical significance only. It has no operational efficacy. Such an examination cannot be used by the University for any practical purpose in relation to any of the candidates. The examination becomes non est. It is held again. In the present case the examination in mathematics paper held on 17th May, 1982 was cancelled. The examination in mathematics paper was held again on 21st July. One may call the cancellation as cancellation of the result, but that is only a confused way of putting it. In the eye of law the cancelled event rendered the examination itself void and of no legal effect. 14. The examination in mathematics paper was held again on 21st July. One may call the cancellation as cancellation of the result, but that is only a confused way of putting it. In the eye of law the cancelled event rendered the examination itself void and of no legal effect. 14. If an examination becomes void, it is difficult to accept the position that it can be treated as a valid examination only for the purpose of awarding punishment to an individual candidate for using unfair means at that examination. 15. Section 29 (4) contemplates use of unfair means at an examination validly held or conducted and not an examination which is nullified or quashed by the University on a ground which shows that the examination itself was not proper or valid. 16. With the nullifying of such an examination, the event of such an examination being held, disappears. An incident of use of unfair means, if any, in such an event cannot be characterised as use of unfair means at any such examination or at an examination conducted by the University. 17. Since the examination in mathematics paper was cancelled, the University authorities could not validly punish the petitioner for using unfair mean at that examination. 18. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 13th Nov., 1982 cancelling the petitioners examination and debarring him from appearing at the 1983 examination is quashed. In the circumstances, the parties may bear their own costs. Petition allowed.