JUDGMENT H.N. Seth and A.C.J. 1. As in these two petitions common questions of facts, and law are involved, they can be disposed of by one judgment. 2. Whereas Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4604 of 1976 is Shashi Prakash, Writ Petition No. 1949 of 1977 has been filed by Ashok Kumar Sharma. On 17.7.1976 the Assistant Registrar (Confidential), Agra University informed the two Petitioners that the Examination Committee had found them guilty of misbehaviour with the teacher on duty at the Examination Centre and had directed cancellation of their B.A. (II) result of 1975. The Examination Committee had further debarred them from appearing in any examination of the University upto the year 1976. Aggrieved, both the Petitioners have approached this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Both Shashi Prakash and Ashok Kumar Sharma appeared as regular candidates of B.A. (II) Examination of Agra University from P.C. Bagla Degree College, Hathras for the year 1974-75. The last paper in which they had to appear in the said Examination was over on 10.6.1975. It is said that the examination in Sociology and paper of B.A. (II) was to take place on 13.6.1975. On that date one Shri R.S. Kaushal, who was on invigilation duty in Room No. 8 of P.C. Bagla Degree College, was assaulted. Sri Kaushal then made a complaint to the Principal, P.C. Bagla College wherein he mentioned that he was on invigilation duty in Room No. 8 in the morning shift of 13.6.1975 for Sociology paper-2, of B.A. (II) examination. Safari Ramesh Chandra Shrotriya and Ram Mahesh Sharma, two students were taking examination in the said room. During the examination Ashok Kumar Sharma and Shashi Prakash both students of B.A. (II) along with one more person tried to pass material for copying to aforementioned two examinees which attempt was intercepted by him. This annoyed the two examinees and they threatened Sri Kaushal with dire consequences. As soon as Sri Kaushal came out of the invigilation room, the two examinees and the two Petitioners assaulted him with fists and blows. They also threw chairs etc. at him. As Sri Kaushal rushed towards the office of the Principal and was negotiating the steps, the assailants pushed him violently as a result of which Sri Kaushal fell down. As soon as Sri Kaushal came out of the invigilation room, the two examinees and the two Petitioners assaulted him with fists and blows. They also threw chairs etc. at him. As Sri Kaushal rushed towards the office of the Principal and was negotiating the steps, the assailants pushed him violently as a result of which Sri Kaushal fell down. After recovering Sri Kaushal headed towards the office of the Principal and as he was narrating incident to him he was again assaulted by aforementioned persons causing him a number of injuries and profuse bleeding. The Principal forwarded the report made by Sri Kaushal to the University which deputed its Registrar to make an inquiry into the matter. Subsequently, the University gave a show cause notice to Shashi Prakash on 18.8.75 and to Ashok Kumar on 19.8.75 charging them with gross indiscipline inside the Examination-Hall for helping students in using unfair means and misbehaving with Prof. R.S. Kaushal outside the Examination-Hall in connection with the conduct of University Examination. Both the Petitioners then sent their respective replies refuting the allegations made against them. Thereafter the case of the Petitioner along with others was placed before the Examination Committee on 17.11.1975 when the Committee resolved that the two Petitioners should be called for personal hearing on December 1, 1975. The two Petitioners appeared before the Examination Committee and thereafter they were asked to submit their explanations. After considering their explanations the Examination Committees revolved thus: 13. With reference to Examination Committee's -resolution No. 8 of November 17, 1975, the Committee considered the explanation given by Sarvasri Ramesu Chandra Shrotriya, Ashok Kumar Sharma, Ram Mahesh and Shashi Prakash on 1.12.1975 at the time of personal hearing in connection with the charge of misbehaviour leveled against them and to take decision finally in their cases. Resolved that B.A. (II) examination of 1975 of abovementioned four students be cancelled and they be further debarred from appearing at any Examination till 1976. Thereafter the Assistant Registrar, Agra University, communicated the decision of the Examination Committee to the two Petitioners vide communication dated 17.7.1976. 4. Resolved that B.A. (II) examination of 1975 of abovementioned four students be cancelled and they be further debarred from appearing at any Examination till 1976. Thereafter the Assistant Registrar, Agra University, communicated the decision of the Examination Committee to the two Petitioners vide communication dated 17.7.1976. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the two Petitioners while impugning the validity of the action of the Agra University in cancelling their B.A. (II) Examination for the year 1975 and debarring them to appear at any University Examination till the year 1976, urged that according to the Ordinances framed by the Agra University the Examination Committee is competent to cancel the examination and to award any punishment only to a candidate for the University Examination. According to him, the Examination committee had no jurisdiction to punish any candidate for any misdemeanor after he ceased to be a candidate for the University Examination. In the instant case examination in the last paper in which the two Petitioners were required to appear in their B.A. (II) Examination, was held on 10.6.1975. Accordingly the two Petitioners ceased to be candidates for B.A. (II) Examination after 10.6.1975 and the Examination Committee was not competent to deal with them in regard to the incident which is said to have taken place on 13.6.1975. 5. Relevant portion of Ordinance 12 of Chapter XXV of the Agra University Act, as it stood at the relevant time, runs thus: The Examinations Committee may also cancel the examination of a candidate and/or may give such punishment as it may deem proper after giving opportunity to explain. 1. Who is found during the examinations guilty of the breach of Rules laid down by the University from time to time which act may or may not actually amount to using unfair means ; or 2. Who commits an act of indiscipline or misbehaviour inside and/or outside the Examination-Hall towards an official engaged in performing duties like superintendence, invigilation, inspection etc. in connection with the conduct of the University Examinations or towards such other officials deputed by the University for the purpose of searching the persons of a candidate or of taking any other action against a candidate who is suspected to be using or intending to use unfair means or helping another candidate in the use of unfair means at an examination ; or 3. Who is found impersonating a candidate for the examination or who is found resorting to any notorious activity inside or outside the University/ College presincts. In case the person so impersonating is not a student of the University or a College affiliated to the University, Superintendent of the Examination Centre concerned may hand him over to the police for necessary action.... 6. Clause (2) of the extract quoted above clearly indicates that the Examinations Committee has been empowered to cancel the examination of a person who, while he is a candidate for a University Examination, commits an act of indiscipline or misbehaviour inside and/or outside the Examination Hall, towards any official engaged in performing duties like superintendence, invigilation, inspection etc. in connection with the conduct of the University Examination. A person who applies for appearing at a University Examination does not cease to be a candidate for the examination merely because all the papers in which he is to appear are over. In our opinion, he continues to be a candidate for the said examination till such time as the result of that examination is not formally declared. Inasmuch as, in the instant case, the incident in question took place on 13.6.1975 long before the B.A. (II) Examination in which the Petitioners had appeared, was declared, the Petitioners on that date were ' candidates "for the University Examination. It has been found that they, while they were candidates, had committed acts of indiscipline and misbehaviour towards an official who was engaged in performing the invigilation duties in connection with the conduct of University Examinations. The Examinations Committee was accordingly fully competent to deal with the two Petitioners and to award them punishment of cancelling their 1975 B.A. (II) Examination. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners tried to submit that on the facts of the case neither of the two Petitioners were actually involved in the incident dated 3.6.1975 and that the Examinations Committee erred in not accepting the explanation offered by them. In our opinion, it is for the Examinations Committee, to, on the basis of material brought before it, assess the credibility of the versions set up before it; and this Court cannot in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution scrutinise that material with a view to come to its own conclusion on questions of facts involved in the case. This Court does not, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, act as a court of appeal. The j conclusion arrived at by the Examination Committee, after considering the explanations offered by the two Petitioners, that they were guilty of gross acts of indiscipline, in our opinion, does not suffer from any error of law I or of fact. Accordingly no case has been made out for interfering with the j decision of the Examination Committee on merits. 8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners then relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Agra University v. Ashok Kumar Arora 1976 ALJ 183, wherein it had been held that the Examination Committee of the University in exercise of its power of general supervision u/s 29(3) of the Act cannot debar a candidate from appearing at a future examination if the candidate has been found guilty of using unfair means at an examination in a particular year. However, it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on this question at this stage because the two Petitioners had been debarred from appearing in the University Examinations till the year 1976 only and that year is long over. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners did not raise any other argument for questioning the validity of the action of the Examination Committee in cancelling their B.A. (II) Examinations for the year 1975. 9. Inasmuch as the Petitioners have failed to make out any case for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on the basis of the two submissions made on their behalf, these petitions fail and are dismissed with costs.