JUDGMENT V.K. Mehrotra and A.P. Misra, JJ. - This petition is directed against an order passed by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad, cancelling the result of the petitioner of the Intermediate Examination (Science) of the year 1983 in which she had appeared with Roll No. 294133. Initially, the petitioner was declared to have passed the examination and from the mark - sheet of which a copy has been appended as Annexure 2 to the writ petition, it appears that she secured 72.8% marks in the examination. The case of the petitioner is that long after she had passed the examination and was per suing her studies in B.Sc. she was informed that her result had been cancel ed The reason for cancellation was that she was found to have used unfair means while answering the English second paper. Her case is that she made a representation to the Board saying that she was a very good student and there was no reason for her to use unfair means and that the allegation to that effect was not correct. We may also notice that the case of the Board is that while answering Question No. 5 (a) which related to translation of Hindi passage into English she had copied from the answer given by another examinee appearing with Roll No. 294131. The case of the petitioner is that the allegation that she had copied out the answer was absolutely incorrect and that the seating arrangement was such that it was not possible for her to do so either. When the petitioner failed to obtain any redress on the representation made her she approached this Court by means of the present writ petition. 2. The petition was presented in this Court on 28-9-1984 when it was directed to come up an October 17, 1984 and the learned Standing Counsel was asked to obtain instructions and the necessary records for the perusal of the Court. The answer books were shown to the Court by the learned Standing Counsel on November 19, 1984. The court directed the learned Standing Counsel to file a counter affidavit and the case was ordered to come up on December 3, 1984. On the date, further time was allowed to the learned Standing Counsel to file a counter affidavit. The answer books were shown to the Court by the learned Standing Counsel on November 19, 1984. The court directed the learned Standing Counsel to file a counter affidavit and the case was ordered to come up on December 3, 1984. On the date, further time was allowed to the learned Standing Counsel to file a counter affidavit. The Court directed the case to come up on December 13, 1984, peremptorily and it was made clear that in case no counter affidavit is 'filed the Court would proceed on basis this facts stated in the petition are correct. On December 13 the case was ordered to be taken up today on the request made by the learned Standing Counsel. 3. The respondents have not filed a counter affidavit and it has been stated before us by the learned Standing Counsel that in spite of repeated efforts the officials of the respondents have not approached the Standing Counsel for getting the counter affidavit prepared. Since it was made clear to the respondent Board on December 3, 1984, that the Court will proceed to examine the matter on the basis of the facts stated in the petition treating them to be correct in case no counter affidavit is filed we proceed to decide the case on that basis. We may add that we are faced with this situation quite often and paper from great wastage of the Court's time in accommodating the learned Standing Counsel again and again we find it most annoying that the respondent - Board is not taking due care to place its version before the Court in the form of counter affidavit. 4. The marks obtained by her establish the claim of the petitioner that she is a brilliant Student. The fact, that having regard to the seating arrangement of the candidates, it was impossible for the petitioner to copy out the answer given by the candidates bearing Roll No. 294131 asserted in Paragraph 27 of the petition remains uncontrovered. So also the ascertain in Paragraph 27 of the petition that the comparison of the answers contained in the answer books of the petitioner and the candidate with Roll No. 294131 would make it clear that the answer were written independently and that in any case the petitioner could not be said to have copied the answer from the answer book of candidate with Roll No. 294131. We may add that we have compared the answer given by the petitioner and the candidate with Roll No. 294131 ourselves and we find that the conclusion that the petitioner had copied the answer from the answer book of that candidate is plainly arbitrary. We find that even the spelling in the so called mistake are different in some cases and the answer book of the petitioner does not contain quite few words which arc mentioned in the answer given by the candidate with Roll No. 294131, We have also found that some of the mistake committed by the candidate with Roll No. 294131 are missing from the answer of the petitioner. 5. It is true that normally it is for the officials of the Board to go into the question whether a candidate can be said to have resorted to unfair means but in a case where their decision is found to be arbitrary, this Court is under on obligation to go into the matter and grant redress. The only evidence upon which learned Standing Counsel has been able to place reliance before us to sustain the decision of the Board is in the from of evidence furnished by the answer contained in the two answers books. That evidence, in our ( pinion, is not such upon which any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that the petitioner reported to unfair means in giving her answer to Question No. 5 (a) of English Second Paper. On this ground also the decision of the Board cannot be upheld. 6. In consequence, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Board cancelling the result of - the petitioner's Intermediate Science Examination of the year 1983 id quashed. The petitioner would be entitled the costs from the respondents.