JUDGMENT : I.P. Singh, J. Sanjeev Misra, Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of the writ of certiorari and to quash the impugned notice dated 8-10-1984, can ceiling his B.E (II year course in the Civil Engineering) Examination 1984, and simultaneously debarring him from appearing in the examination to be held in 1985. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the Petitioner had appeared in B.E. (II year Course in Civil Engineering), Examination 1984 under roll No. 643 from Moti Lal Nehru Regional Engineering College Allahabad, Respondent No. 2, held by University of Allahabad, Respondent No. 1 After the examination, the Petitioner was issued show-cause notice (Annexure 1 dated 26-5-84) alleging use of unfair means in the examination. The Petitioner submitted his reply (annexure 2 dated 26-5-84) to the said notice. Thereafter the Petitioner received the impugned notice dated 8-10-84, annexure 3, can ceiling his examination for the year 1984 and debasing him from appearing in the examination to be held in 1985. In the said notice, it was mentioned that the cases of four students involved in unfair means were finalised by the University vide letter No. (?)/SC-892/84 dated September 16, 1984, and the punishment in question was being awarded accordingly. The Petitioner sought the copy of the said letter dated 16-9-84 through his applications/letters dated 11-10-84, 15-10-84 and 27-10-84 but the said copy was not issued to him. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he had not employed any unfair means, that correct facts appeared in his explanation/reply dated 26-5-84, annexure 2 but he was not afforded any proper opportunity of hearing and that in awarding the punishment he was discriminated vis-a-vis the other students whose names appeared in the impugned notice dated 8-10-84. During the arguments the learned Counsel for the Petitioner even challenged the legality of the said show-cause notice dated 26-5-84 on the ground of uncertainty and vagueness. 4. Allahabad University, Respondent No. 1 filed counter affidavit of Shri Suhel Ahmad, Legal Assistant in the University of Allahabad, the Principal Moti Lal Nehru Regional Engineering College, Allahabad, Respondent No. 2 did not file any counter affidavit. The Petitioner also filed rejoinder affidavit. 5. 4. Allahabad University, Respondent No. 1 filed counter affidavit of Shri Suhel Ahmad, Legal Assistant in the University of Allahabad, the Principal Moti Lal Nehru Regional Engineering College, Allahabad, Respondent No. 2 did not file any counter affidavit. The Petitioner also filed rejoinder affidavit. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No. 1 it was vouched that on 25-5-84 the Petitioner had appeared in the first paper of B.E. (II year Civil Engineering) Examination, 1984, when he was found in possession of unauthorised material. The invigilator reported that the Petitioner was keeping a chit inside his answer book and was trying to copy from it. The Head Invigilator reported that when the Petitioner was asked to sign the said unauthorised material (chit) recovered from his possession the Petitioner tore a part of the said chit. The Petitioner, however, signed the U.F.M. Form and admitted that the unauthorised material was recovered from his desk. Subsequently notice dated 26-5-84 was sent to the Petitioner by registered post, calling upon him to show cause or submit his explanation, if any, by 5-6-84. The details of unauthorised material found in possession of the Petitioner were also given in the said notice as "one hand written chit." It has been further vouched that the Petitioner’s detailed reply was received (which has been filed by the Petitioner as annexure 2 to the petition), that the examiner also reported that the Petitioner had used the unauthorised material in answering questions No. 1 and 2. The matter therefore came up before the Committee formed to deal with and decide cases relating to use of unfair means in the examinations. The Committee considered the reports of the Invigilator, the Head Invigilator, the show cause notice, the reply submitted by the Petitioner, the answer book of the Petitioner and the unauthorised material (chit) and other relevant documents and came to the conclusion that the Petitioner was guilty of using unfair means at the said examination and decided to cancel the result of the Petitioner for the year 1984 and to debar him from appearing in the examination of the year 1985, that the said conclusion or decision of the committee was in accordance with the revised Ordinance on the use of unfair means etc. It was further vouched that there was No. discrimination between the Petitioner and other students mentioned in the notice annexure 3 to the petition. 6. It was further vouched that there was No. discrimination between the Petitioner and other students mentioned in the notice annexure 3 to the petition. 6. We have heard Shri Markandey Katju, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri B.D. Agarwal, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1. Shri Katju has stressed the following points. 7. First, that the show cause notice dated 26-5-54, annexure 1 to the writ petition, is a nullity inasmuch as it is uncertain and vague in its contents. It is pointed out that the said notice alleges that "you were found using/attempting to use unfair means in the examination." It is argued that both the assertions "found using" and "attempting to use" are contradictory and, therefore, vague and uncertain. It is argued that the said notice is in a way, tantamount to a "charge" levelled against the Petitioner which he was to meet. It is argued that in the fitness of things the said "charge" should be clear and unambiguous so that the Petitioner should know in clear terms as to what "charge" be is to meet. But we do not agree with this contention. The principles of criminal trial cannot be imported into this type of quasi judicial proceedings. To our mind said notice put the Petitioner on his alert that he was making use or attempting to use the unauthorised material i.e. a hand written chit, found from his possession in the examination hall, during the examination. 8. Here, it may be noted that in para 3 of the writ petition it is clearly mentioned that the "show cause notice by the University alleged him of using unfair means." In this way, there is No. doubt that the Petitioner took the said notice to charge him of actually using unfair means and merely charging him of "attempting to use unfair means". Thus No. prejudice seems to have been caused to the Petitioner in submitting his representation/reply in the matter. As a matter of feet he had not waited for receiving any notice sent to him by registered post (fact not denied) for submitting his reply within time fixed in the notice. Thus No. prejudice seems to have been caused to the Petitioner in submitting his representation/reply in the matter. As a matter of feet he had not waited for receiving any notice sent to him by registered post (fact not denied) for submitting his reply within time fixed in the notice. He had submitted his reply/representation, annexure 2, on 26-5-84 and he did not choose to ask for any clarification about the alleged ambiguity or vagueness of the notice when it was received by him and did not ask any further opportunity to meet the said notice. He did not submit any additional reply after the receipt of the said notice. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the said notice is not vitiated for any ambiguity or vagueness. So, we repel the above contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 9. The second point raised by Shri Katju is that in fact the said piece of paper/chit was kept inside the pocket of the Petitioner and it was not recovered from inside the answer book. In this connection it is further contended that the Petitioner was not supplied the copy of the invigilator's report in which it was given out that the said chit was found inside the answer book. It is submitted that under these circumstances the Petitioner was prejudiced in submitting his representation/reply, in the representation, annexure 2, the Petitioner mentions that while going for examination on 25-5-84 he had noted down certain formulae on a paper to memorize them. While memorizing them from the said papers he had gone to the dining hall to take his break fast. While taking his break fast he had kept the said paper in his pocket and as he was getting late so he reached the examination hall in a hurry and forgot that he had kept the paper in his pocket. He had put his handkerchief also in the same pocket. About 10 minutes before the examination was to be over he happened to pull out his handkerchief to wipe his face and simultaneously the piece of piper also came out of the pocket and fell on the desk. He then detailed certain circumstances due to which he felt mentally perturbed and in that state of mind he forgot to throw away that piece of paper before entering into the examination hall. 10. He then detailed certain circumstances due to which he felt mentally perturbed and in that state of mind he forgot to throw away that piece of paper before entering into the examination hall. 10. In the representation, it is contended that the said piece of paper/chit had just fallen down out of his pocket on the desk whereas the counter version is that the said chit was found from inside the answer book by the Invigilator who reported the feet immediately to the Head Invigilator. The learned Counsel for the University Respondent No. 1 has argued that the Petitioner had taken up his case in his representation dated 26-5-84 without even waiting for the receipt of any notice from the University and did not feel inclined to submit additional reply/representation after the receipt of the notice and did not feel any necessity for any other information from the University otherwise he could have asked for any information or material which he regarded necessary to enable him to supplement his earlier representation. Under these circumstances it is argued that No. prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner in non supply of the copy of the report of the invigilator. The material on the record clearly show that the Petitioner was aware that one band written chit was found from Ms possession in, connection with which he had signed the U.F.M. form. In this background we feel satisfied that the Petitioner can make No. grouse of the non-supply of the copy of the invigilator's report to him. In the case of Prem Parkash Kaluniya Vs. The Punjab University and Others, (1973) 3 SCC 424 , it was held as under: The law on this point is well-settled that an examinee must be adequately informed of the case he has to meet and given a full opportunity of meeting it. As to what the extent and content of that information should or ought to be would depend on the facts of each case. The examinee can ask for more information or details with regard to the material or evidence which may be sought to be used against him and normally if he makes a request in that behalf the University Authorities, in order to inform him adequately of the case he has to meet, would supply him the necessary particulars or details of the evidence. In the very nature of things No. hard and fast rule can be laid down and so long as the Court is satisfied that the opportunity which was afforded to the examinee was adequate and sufficient, it will not interfere with any orders prejudicial to him which may have been made by the University authorities. 11. Accordingly we reject the second contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner also. 12. The third point raised by Shri M. Katju is that the impugned notice dated 8-10-84, annexure 3, refers to letter No. R/SC-892/M, dated 16-9-84 through which cases of the students involved in the use of unfair means were finalised by the University, and the punishments were awarded to them. The copy of it was not supplied to the Petitioner despite requests made to that effect in his applications/letters dated 11-10-84, 15-10-84 and 27-10-84 so as to know the contents thereof and to be able to meet the same in this petition. We do not think the Petitioner could make any grievance of these facts. The orders passed by a quasi judicial authority can only be challenged and quashed if they are found amiss in observing the principles of natural justice. We are supported in this view by the decision in the case of Triambak Pati Tripathi Vs. The Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad, AIR 1973 All 1 , in which in para 5 the essential principles of natural justice that are to be observed by an authority dealing with the case in quasi judicial manner were enumerated as follows: (1) The person whose rights are to be affected must be given notice of the case or the charges which he has to meet. (2) He must be given an opportunity to make a representation and to explain the allegations made against him and to have his say in the matter; and (3) The authority conducting the proceeding must not be based and should act in good faith. 13. In the decision of Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad Vs. Ghanshyam Das Gupta and Others, AIR 1962 SC 1110 , it was held that "the examination committee, while dealing with the cases of examinees using unfair means in the examination hall acts quasi judicially and the principles of natural justice apply to the proceedings before it." 14. Ghanshyam Das Gupta and Others, AIR 1962 SC 1110 , it was held that "the examination committee, while dealing with the cases of examinees using unfair means in the examination hall acts quasi judicially and the principles of natural justice apply to the proceedings before it." 14. The question that arises for consideration in the present petition is whether the procedure adopted by the examination committee violated the principles of natural justice? In Triambak Poti Tripathi v. The Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. Allahabad (Supra) it was held as under: The rules of natural justice not being embodied rules, it is open to the authority concerned to evolve its own procedure for acquainting the person concerned with the charges and the material on which they are founded, and also for affording him an opportunity of explaining those charges and putting forward his case. The procedure will necessarily vary with the facts circumstances and nature of the case, constitution of the authority dealing with it and the rules under which it functions. The material on the record clearly indicates that the Petitioner had voluntarily put in his representation even before the receipt of any notice and the said representation was duly considered by the committee formed to deal with and decide the cases relating to use of unfair means at the examination, along with the reports of the invigilator, the Head Invigilator and the examiner; the answer book of the Petitioner and the unauthorised material i.e. the chit which was found in possession of the Petitioner in the examination hall. For our own satisfaction we had required the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 to make available the answer book of the Petitioner and the unauthorised material i.e. chit which be did produce and we had the privilege of going through them with the help of the learned Counsel for the parties. The said slip was found to contain certain formulae (this fact has been admitted by the Petitioner in his representation also that he had put down certain formulae on the said chit for memorising them). Some of the formulae were found to be actually used in answering some of the questions in the said answer book. We have referred to above facts to satisfy ourselves that the conclusion drawn by the examination committee cannot be said to be based on No. evidence. 15. Some of the formulae were found to be actually used in answering some of the questions in the said answer book. We have referred to above facts to satisfy ourselves that the conclusion drawn by the examination committee cannot be said to be based on No. evidence. 15. This Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction does not act as a Court of appeal and the matter cannot be re-examined by it. It was for the committee to come to the conclusion on the facts and circumstances placed before it as to whether the Petitioner-examinee had used unfair means in solving the questions in his answer book. We are supported in this view by the case in Prem Prakash Kaluntya v. The Punjab University AIR 1972 SU 1498 in which it was held in para 11 as under: These however, are matters on which the Court cannot entertain a petition under Article 226. It was for the Standing Committee to arrive at its own conclusion on the evidence before it and the same cannot be reexamined except on very limited grounds which have not been established. 16. Similarly it was held in the case of Ghazanfar Rashid Vs. Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad and Others, AIR 1979 All 209 : (1979) AWC 380, under: If the examinations Committee, relying on the report of the Screening Committee as well as on the answers of an examinee bona fide arrives at the conclusion that the examinee used unfair means in answering the question it is not open to the High Court to interfere with that decision merely because the High Court may take different view or re-assessment of those circumstances it is the function of the appellate court to take a different view of the evidence and not the function of a supervisory court to interfere with the order on the ground of a different possible view. While it is open to the High Court to interfere with the order of a quasi judicial authority it is not supported by any evidence or if the order is passed in contravention of the statutory provisions of law, or in violation of the principles of natural justice, but the court has No. jurisdiction to interfere with the order merely on the ground that the evidence available on the record is insufficient or inadequate or on the ground that a different view could possibly be taken on the evidence available on the record. The examinations committee has jurisdiction to take decision in the matter of use of unfair means not only on direct evidence but also on probabilities or direct evidence but also on probabilities and circumstantial evidence. There is No. scope for importing the principle of criminal trial while considering the probative value of probabilities and circumstantial evidence. The quasi judicial authorities - including the Examinations Committee are not bound by technical rules of evidence and procedure as are applicable to courts. 17. We are not concerned, in the writ jurisdiction about the appreciation of the evidence by the Committee concerned. The only question to which we are directed is that whether the principles of natural justice were observed by the Committee or not The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to draw our attention to any lapse on the part of the Committee in that direction. There is No. allegation that the Committee was biased against the Petitioner. Therefore, we repel this contention also. 18. It was then argued that the Petitioner was not given personal hearing. But we are not impressed by this argument also. In our opinion the question of personal hearing did not arise and was not necessary. It was held in the case of Triambak Pati Tripathiy. The Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad (supra) as under: A personal hearing to the candidate against whom action is proposed to be taken by the Examination Committee is not necessary. There is neither any statutory requirement, nor any requirement of principle of natural justice which compels the Examinations Committee to give a personal hearing to the candidates. 19. We are, therefore, convinced that the principles of natural justice were not violated by the Committee or for that matter by the University, Respondent No. 1. 20. There is neither any statutory requirement, nor any requirement of principle of natural justice which compels the Examinations Committee to give a personal hearing to the candidates. 19. We are, therefore, convinced that the principles of natural justice were not violated by the Committee or for that matter by the University, Respondent No. 1. 20. Lastly, it was argued that the Petitioner has been discriminated as against the other students whose names appear at No. 1 and 4 in the impugned notice inasmuch as the only punishment given to them was mere cancellation of their examination of 1984 which the Petitioner was also debarred from appearing in the examination of 1985. The learned Counsel for the Respondents has contended that this action cannot be termed as discrimination because the relevant ordinance on the use of unfair means applicable provides that where a student is simply found in possession of unauthorised material the result of the candidate for the concerned examination is to be cancelled while if candidate is found having transcribed in part or whole of the unauthorised material of which he was found in possession, then besides cancellation of his result of the examination in question he is also to be debarred from subsquent examination of the next academic session. The relevant ordinance was shown to us and those provisions are laid down in Sub-clause A and B of Clause 1.6. of the said Ordinance. It is pointed out that the cases of the students of serial Nos. 1 and 4 were covered by Sub-clause A of the Ordinance. We have No. reason to doubt this contention. 21. As a result of the above discussion, we find No. force in this petition. It is hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the case the costs are made easy.