JUDGMENT K. N. Goyal, J. 1. IN these writ petitions a large number of students, who appeared in the High School and INtermediate Examinations held by the U. P. Board of INtermdiate Education in 1983, have challenged the withholding of their results. It has been alleged that even after the results had been passed by the Results Committee and had been sent to the newspapers for publication, the Deputy Secretary of the Board ordered withholding of the results at the last moment and directed the newspapers concerned not to publish the results. This is alleged, in most of the cases, to have been done at the instigation of the members of the Madhyamik Sikshak Sangh, and in others, on the report of the District INspector of Schools. It has been contended that the Deputy Secretary had no power to withhold the result. 2. ON behalf of the Board it has been contended that the allegations of mala fide are wrong, that the Deputy Secretary has power and that the results have been withheld bona fide because of suspicion of mass copying at different examination centres. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. WE have been informed by the learned Standing Counsel that in quite a number of cases the results of the candidates have subsequently been ordered by the Unfair Means Committee to be cancelled. Other cases are still pending consideration before that Committee. 4. WE may first take up the cases of those candidates whose results have been withheld but not yet cancelled. The question arises as to whether the Deputy Secretary had the power of withholding the results on receiving any complaint of mass copying etc. 5. LEARNED Standing Counsel Sri H. N. Tilhari has contended that under section 12 (4-A) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act the Secretary was empowered to exercise such powers as are necessary for the conduct of the examinations. The expression "conduct of the examinations" includes every stage right upto the declaration of the results of examination. In pursuance of this power he distributed the work of the Board amongst various sections and placed the Deputy Secretary in charge of Confidential-5 Department who deals with the cases of alleged use of unfair means. The expression "conduct of the examinations" includes every stage right upto the declaration of the results of examination. In pursuance of this power he distributed the work of the Board amongst various sections and placed the Deputy Secretary in charge of Confidential-5 Department who deals with the cases of alleged use of unfair means. This distribution amounted to delegation of powers of the Secretary, which delegation was within the competence of the Secretary as amongst the ancillary and necessary powers conferred on him by section 12 (4-A). 6. SECTION 13 of the Act provides for appointment of an examination committee by the Board. Its composition is specified in sub-section (2) of this section. Sub-section (3) provides for appointment of other committees in accordance with the regulations. Chapter IV of the Regulations provides for constitution of region wise committees to dispose of suspected cases of use of unfair means, mass copying in Board's examination and other similar and connected matters. The powers of the regional committees for disposal of cases of unfair means are set out in Chapter VI-B of the regulation. Regulation 2 of this Chapter provides as follows :- "2. Subject to the sanction and control of the Board, it shall be the duty of the committees referred to in regulation- (1) to consider cases where examinees have concealed any fact or made false statement in their application forms or have committed a breach of rules or regulations to secure undue admission to an examination or have used or are suspected to have used unfair means or have committed fraud or impersonation at the examination or are guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude or indiscipline or have appeared in the examination with the help of amanuensis in contravention of the rules or run away with answer book or have destroyed the answer-book, and to award penalty which may be one or more of the following :- (a) cancellation of the examination concerned. (b) exclusion from the examination concerned or from subsequent examination including highest examination of the Board; (c) withdrawal of certificate of having passed the examination. (b) exclusion from the examination concerned or from subsequent examination including highest examination of the Board; (c) withdrawal of certificate of having passed the examination. (2) to consider complaints against Central Superintendent, Head of Institution, invigilator, teacher or other employee in regard to any of their lapses, negligence or irregularities at the examination of the Board and to make recommendations in regard to punishment to be awarded to any of them; (3) to consider such other matters which are not specified in the preceding clauses but are directly or indirectly connected with them; and (4) to exercise such other duties as the Board may delegate to it from time to time." The Results Committee has also been given certain powers which are specified in Regulation 2 (10) of Chapter VI-A, which is as follows:- "2 (10). To withhold the results in cases where examinees have concealed any fact or made a false statement in their application forms or have committed a breach of rules or regulations to secure undue admission to an examination or used unfair means or have committed fraud or impersonation at the examination or are guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude or indiscipline or had brought lethal weapon or knife or have assaulted or threatened to assault any person appointed in connection with the conduct of examinations or used abusive language at the examination centre or had been granted amanuensis in contravention of rules on the basis of wrong or false grounds and in such other contingencies where it may be considered necessary to do so." 7. THE powers of the Secretary are specified in Chapter III of the Regulation. THE relevant regulation is Regulation-4 which is as follows :- "4. THE Secretary shall, subject to the provisions of the regulations in the succeeding chapter, make arrangements for the conduct of the Board's examinations including fixation of examination centres and evaluation centres, and for publication, declaration or withholding of results, and shall exercise such powers as are necessary there for." 8. IT cannot be disputed, as rightly alleged by the learned Standing Counsel, that conduct of examination includes declaration of results of the examination. The Secretary has been specifically given the powers in respect of withholding of results. This power has, however, been succeeding chapters which includes Chapter VI-A and VI-B, relevant provisions of which have already been set out above. IT cannot be disputed, as rightly alleged by the learned Standing Counsel, that conduct of examination includes declaration of results of the examination. The Secretary has been specifically given the powers in respect of withholding of results. This power has, however, been succeeding chapters which includes Chapter VI-A and VI-B, relevant provisions of which have already been set out above. The Unfair Means Committee has been specifically given the power under the Regulation 2 (1) quashed earlier to cancel examination not only in case of use of unfair means but also because of suspicion of use of unfair means. There is no specific mention therein of the power to withhold results, though the same could possibly be covered by Regulation 2 (3). The Results Committee has also been given power to withhold results in case of use of unfair means. Learned Standing Counsel contends that this power of the Results Committee cannot be exercised in case of suspected use of unfair means. His contention is that the power to withhold result in case of suspected use of unfair means as distinguished from established use of unfair means, has not been conferred specifically either on the Results Committee or on the Regional Unfair Means Committee and as such it must be deemed to vest in the Secretary. We may, for purposes of argument, accept this contention without expressing any final view in that regard. Assuming, thus, that the Secretary alone had the power to withhold results in case of suspected use of unfair means, the further question arises as to whether the Secretary had the power to delegate this power to the Deputy Secretary and also, if so, whether the Secretary did, in fact, delegate this power. We are of the opinion that both these questions must be answered in negative. Firstly, the Secretary's power being statutory in regard to withholding of results he could not delegate that statutory power unless he had been authorised either by the Board, while making regulations or by the Legislature, to make any such further delegation of his powers. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the power of delegation could be inferred from section 12 (4-A) itself does not appeal to us. The power of delegation cannot be considered a necessary power which is ancillary to the main power conferred either by the Legislature or by the Board. 9. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the power of delegation could be inferred from section 12 (4-A) itself does not appeal to us. The power of delegation cannot be considered a necessary power which is ancillary to the main power conferred either by the Legislature or by the Board. 9. SECONDLY, the alleged delegation is said to be established by the letter issued on 28-11-81 by the Secretary to various Deputy Directors and District Inspectors of Schools intimating them about the distribution of business of the Board between different departments. It was laid down in the instructions contained in this letter that while corresponding with the Board these officers should always indicate the serial number of the department, mentioned in the letter, to which a particular subject matter of communication was entrusted. This arrangement was made in order to facilitate and expedite the attention that would be given to the letters of these officers at the level of the Board. This intimation cannot amount to delegation by the Secretary of his statutory functions to various subordinate officers who may be in charge of the different sections mentioned in the letter. Dealing with the matters within the purview of a particular section is one thing, but passing of order in connection with the matter dealt with, particularly when the orders fall within the purview of statutory provisions is another. This letter does not, in our opinion, amount to delegation of powers even if the Secretary be assumed to have any power to delegate the power in question, which, we have already held, he did not. 10. IN this view of the matter the decisions and the orders passed by the Deputy Secretary to withhold results were, in our opinion, clearly ultra vires and cannot be sustained. It is, therefore, unnecessary to go into the allegations of mala fide. It is not disputed before us that the Secretary himsel did not pass any orders in this behalf. So far as those cases are concerned in which subsequent to the withholding of the results by the Deputy Secretary the Unfair Means Committee has passed final orders of cancellation of examinations, we cannot pass any order directing declaration of results which have already been cancelled. The original relief claimed in the writ petitions being directed against the order of withholding of results has become infructuous. The original relief claimed in the writ petitions being directed against the order of withholding of results has become infructuous. If any orders of cancellation are challenged they will have to be challenged separately and though individual (not collective) writ petitions. 11. IN writ petition no. 3586 of 1983 there are three petitioners out of them the results of Km. Urmila Devi and Km. Mridula have been cancelled on 13-1-84. The result of Km. Diksha Verma has not yet been cancelled. Accordingly we direct the Board to declare the result of Km. Diksha Verma within a week. 12. IN writ petition no. 3890 of 1983 the result of Bishun Mohan Singh, has alreadv been released. The results of Krishan Pal Singh, Raja Ram Daya Shanker, Raj Kumar Misra and Satya Prakash have been cancelled and thus the petition on their behalf has become infructuous. The result of Brahma Prakash Singh has already been declared and as such his petition has also become infructuous. The result of Ziyaul Haq has already been cancelled. All these cancellations are said to be dated 31-1-1983. As such this writ petition has, in its entirety, become infructuous and is dismissed as such. In Writ Petition No. 3889, 4104 and 4587 of 1983 the results of the ten petitioners have not yet been declared. No information is available at present with learned Standing Counsel about these results. They shall be declared within a week unless already released or cancelled. 13. IN Writ Petition No. 3891 of 1983 the result of the sole petitioner Rajeev Jhunjhunwala has already been declared. The petition is dismissed as such. 14. IN Writ Petition No. 3886 of 1983 the result of none of the candidates has been declared. Accordingly the Board is directed to declare the results of all the 29 candidates within a week. In Writ Petition No. 4494 of 1983 the result of none of the candidates has been declared. As such we direct that the result of all the five candidates shall be declared within a week 15. IN Writ Petition No. 4495 of 1983 the result of the sole petitioner h as already been declared; as such the petition is dismissed as infructuous. 16. IN Writ Petition No. 3986 of 1983 the results of Km. Sahanaz Begum and Km. Sunita Srivastava have already been released while the result of Km. Manju Lata Singh has been cancelled. IN Writ Petition No. 4495 of 1983 the result of the sole petitioner h as already been declared; as such the petition is dismissed as infructuous. 16. IN Writ Petition No. 3986 of 1983 the results of Km. Sahanaz Begum and Km. Sunita Srivastava have already been released while the result of Km. Manju Lata Singh has been cancelled. As such the petition is dismissed as infructuous. In writ petition No. 4070 of 1983 the result of none of the candidates has been declared. As such the petition is allowed and we direct the Board to declare the result of all the ten candidates within a week. 17. IN Writ Petition No. 3885 of 1983 the results of all the candidates have already been released and as such the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. 18. IN Writ Petition No. 4069 the results of petitioners nos. 7 and 8 have already been released while the results of petitioners 1 to 6 have been cancelled on 14-2-84 and as such the petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. In Writ Petition No. 4473 of 1983 the results of petitioners 1 to 3 have been cancelled while the results of petitioners 4 to 7 are still pending. We, therefore, direct that the results of petitioners nos. 4 to 7 be declared within a week while the petition of petitioners nos. 1 to 3 is dismissed as infructuous. 19. IN Writ Petition No. 4813 of 1983 the result of the sole petitioner has already been declared, as such the petition is dismissed as infructuous. 20. IN Writ Petition No. 4991 of 1983 the results of petitioners nos. 1, 3 and 4 have been cancelled on 31-1-84 and as such their petition is dismissed as infructuous. The result of petitioner no. 2 is still pending. It shall, therefore, be declared within a week. In Writ Petition No. 3783 of 1983 the result of petitioner no. 5 has already been released and as such his petition is dismissed as infructuous. The results of petitioner nos. 1 to 4 shall be released within a week. 21. IN Writ Petition No. 4992 of 1983 the results of petitioners nos. 1 to 4 have already been released and as such their petition is dismissed as infructuous. The result of petitioners nos. The results of petitioner nos. 1 to 4 shall be released within a week. 21. IN Writ Petition No. 4992 of 1983 the results of petitioners nos. 1 to 4 have already been released and as such their petition is dismissed as infructuous. The result of petitioners nos. 2 and 3 are still pending and as such we direct it to be declared within a week. 22. IN Writ Petition No. 4118 of 1983 the results of all the candidates are still pending. The petition is therefore, allowed and we direct their results to be declared within a week. In Writ Petition No. 4805 of 1983 the results of petitioners nos. 1, 5 to 9 are still pending. They shall be declared within a week. The results of petitioners nos. 2 and 4 have already been released while the result of petitioner no. 3 has been cancelled and as such his petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. 23. IN Writ Petition No. 4894 of 1983 the results of both the petitioners have been cancelled on 31-1-84 and as such this petition is dismissed as infructuous. 24. SOME of the matters are still pending before the Unfair Means Committee. We clarify that the results so declared shall be without prejudice to any penal action that may be taken against the candidates. The petitioners shall get costs in each case.