JUDGMENT : S. B. Sanyal, J. - In this writ petition the petitioner has sought for an issuance of direction to publish her results in accordance with the finding and recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee and the Moderation Board with respect to the final examination held by the Bihar School Examination Board in the year 1984. She has also prayed for quashing annexure 'l' dated 13.11.84 which is not in consonance with the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee and the Moderation Board. 2. The petitioner appeared as a regular student for the final examination in question from Modern High School, Nayatola, Patna. From the marks-sheet furnished to the institution she learnt to have failed in natural science subject which comprise Physics, Chemistry and Biology. She, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 20 of the Bihar School Examination Board Regulations applied for scrutiny of the natural science paper. 3. On 6.9.84, as will appear from annexure 2', the Scrutiny Committee reported that there has been miscalculation and marks assigned in Biology has not been carried over to cover page. It stated that the candidate has obtained 18 marks in Biology instead of 15. On 16.9.84, at the instance of the Chairman, the opinion of the Unfairmeans Committee was directed to be obtained. The Unfairmeans Committee reported that the candidate should be awarded 15 marks only. On 22.9.84 when the matter was sent back to the office, the Deputy Secretary reported that, as there appear to be divergence of opinion of the Scrutiny Committee and the Unfairmeans Committee, which are all committees of experts, the final decision of the Moderation Board be obtained with respect to the answer paper in Biology. The answer paper thereafter travelled to Moderation Board. On 25.9.84, the Moderation Board agreed with the views of the Scrutiny Committee and opined that the candidate is entitled to benefit of doubt. In spite of the report of the Scrutiny Committee and the Moderation Board, the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Board') did not effect any change in the marks obtained by the petitioner in Biology. She was merely communicated "No Change" vide annexure 1' dated 13.11.84. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Regulation 20 she is entitled to the communication of the result of the Scrutiny Committee. The Board has not so done. She was merely communicated "No Change" vide annexure 1' dated 13.11.84. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Regulation 20 she is entitled to the communication of the result of the Scrutiny Committee. The Board has not so done. Therefore, through this writ petition, she enforces her legal right to the communication of the result of the said committee. It is also contended that communication contained in annexure 1' is not the result of scrutiny and thus the Board has acted in breach of the statutory provisions. The learned counsel further submitted that the reference of the answer book to the Unfairmeans Committee by the Chairman is arbitrary and capricious inasmuch as during the examination, the vigilators did not find her resorting to any unfairmeans. The controversy between the Scrutiny Committee and the Unfairmeans Committee having been resolved in favour of the petitioner by the Moderation Board, the Board acted in excess of jurisdiction in communicating the decision of the Unfairmeans Committee and not the decision of the Scrutiny Committee and the Moderation Board. It is further submitted that Moderation Board is the highest body with respect to the said examination. In the supplementary affidavit, it has been stated that the Board referred the matter to the Moderator for final decision because of the divergence of opinion of the two committees. This has been the usual practice of the Board since the examiner and the head-examiner are not easily available at Patna. Hundreds of answer books are thus referred to the Moderator by the Board who marked the answer papers where the examiner has omitted to mark any question or part thereof. This has been the internal arrangement of the Board. This practice is in vogue since the very inception of the Bihar School Examination Board. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Board. In paragraph 8, it has been stated that some person interested in the petitioner tried to manipulate the marks assigned to the petitioner by the co-examiner. With respect to question nos. 5 and 9 of the Biology Paper the co-examiner assigned zero-marks "but it seems that some person interested in the petitioner put 1 marks each in question no. 5 and in question no. 9". The Scrutiny Committee seemed to have indulged in favouritism. With respect to question nos. 5 and 9 of the Biology Paper the co-examiner assigned zero-marks "but it seems that some person interested in the petitioner put 1 marks each in question no. 5 and in question no. 9". The Scrutiny Committee seemed to have indulged in favouritism. Even assuming two marks were not brought-forward on the cover page with respect to question nos. 5 and 9, even then the total will be 17 (15+2) and not 18. It has further been stated, in the said counter-affidavit, that the Office of the Board forwarded the answer paper to the Moderation Board of Biology without the knowledge of the Chairman. The practice pleaded in the supplementary affidavit has been affirmed in paragraph 12 of, the counter-affidavit except that the permission of the Chairman is required to be obtained. It has also been contended that there was no question of omission by the examiner, in marking any question but the Moderation Board assigned ½ mark to question no. 9. The Moderation Board, has so done only to help the petitioner. The Chairman, therefore, affirmed the marks shown in the original marks-sheet in the Biology paper vide annexure 1'. 6. These having been the stand of the Board when the matter was first listed for admission on 21.11.84; I directed the learned lawyer to produce before me the scrutinised Biology paper, the entire record of the Scrutiny Committee, the Unfairmeans Committee report and the report of the Moderation Board. The matter came up again before me on 13.12.84. On that date, the matter was heard at length. I had also the opportunity to glance through the records produced before me including the question and answer papers. The condemnation of the Scrutiny Committee of their having resorted to malpractice was dealt with in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said ORDER :which reads as hereunder:- "4. Mr. Mahto, appearing today, contended that as a matter of fact, the mark obtained by the petitioner-candidate was zero with respect to answer to question nos. 5 and 9 and that was carried over to the cover page but it appears that somebody penned through the zero later and put down one mark each to the answer of those questions. This the learned counsel argues on the basis that below one in answer to question no. 5, there is zero and a cut mark. Similarly, in question no. This the learned counsel argues on the basis that below one in answer to question no. 5, there is zero and a cut mark. Similarly, in question no. 9, there is a zero which was cut and one mark is put instead. Mr. Mahto, however, fairly stated that this is the conclusion arrived at by looking to the marking but nobody can vouchsafe as to who is responsible for it. In ORDER :to test this submission of the learned counsel, I perused the other pages of the Answer Book. I find that in the answer to question no. 7, there was similarly a zero which was crossed and one mark was put down below it even though, admittedly, there is no controversy over question no. 7. It may also be stated here that all these are in the same ink. In that view of the matter, it is too speculative on the part of the Board to conclude that the Scrutiny Committee did the marking to these answers and not the examiner himself. 5. Further, the Scrutiny Committee, a committee constituted by the Board itself, having stated that two marks were not carried over to the cover page by the examiner, I will goby by their report in absence of any averment that the petitioner had any access to the Answer Paper or influenced the Committee to act illegally. The benefit, if any, should go in favour of the petitioner." But the aforesaid decision did not resolve the matter since, it was contended on behalf of the Board that ½ mark which has been given by the Moderator to question no. 9 is beyond the jurisdiction of the Moderation Board as it had no right to revaluate the answer to question no. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, contended that question no. 9 have four parts and the examiner having not marked all the parts, the Moderation Board was quite competent to mark the omitted part of the answer and while so doing it gave ½ mark. 7. The wrangle between the petitioner and the Board is thus confined to ½ mark only in Biology. If ½ mark awarded by the Moderation Board is taken into consideration, the petitioner passes the natural science subject and consequently the final examination of the year 1984 held by the Board. 8. 7. The wrangle between the petitioner and the Board is thus confined to ½ mark only in Biology. If ½ mark awarded by the Moderation Board is taken into consideration, the petitioner passes the natural science subject and consequently the final examination of the year 1984 held by the Board. 8. In ORDER :to ascertain whether the question no. 9 was fully marked or partially marked and/or there was any omission to mark any part thereof with the consent of the parties, I directed the answer paper to be sent to the Head of the Department of Zoology, B. N. College, Patna and in case of his non-availability to the Head of the Department, Science College, Patna, with a request to submit a report on the basis of the question paper and the answer paper. The Office of the Court was directed to send all the papers in a sealed cover through special messenger with a copy of this ORDER :to the Head of the Department of Zoology, B.N. College, Patna, at the first instance, along with the entire ORDER :passed by me on 12.12.84 to appraise the relevant contentions of the parties and the opinion sought for. 9. The Head of the Department of Zoology B. N. College, Patna, in obedience to Court's request submitted his report on 18.12.1984 which reads as follows: "I have read para 8 of the Hon'ble High Court's ORDER :and I humbly feel that the following points may also be brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Justice, as I have gone through the entire answer book of the candidate. This, I feel will be to the interest of justice and fair play. 1. The answer to question at places are wrong but not absurd as we usually come across while examining answer books of even higher standard. The candidate has reasonably good knowledge of the subject. 2. Answer to sub-questions (a) & (b) of question no. 9 are wrong. Answer to sub-question (c) is relevant and that of sub-question (d) is correct. Hence a maximum of one mark out of two be awarded to the candidate. 3. Award of zero mark to the answer of question no. 2 is not justified. Answer to sub-questions (ii) & (iii) are relevant and a total of one mark be awarded. "4. Award of zero mark by the examiner to question no. Hence a maximum of one mark out of two be awarded to the candidate. 3. Award of zero mark to the answer of question no. 2 is not justified. Answer to sub-questions (ii) & (iii) are relevant and a total of one mark be awarded. "4. Award of zero mark by the examiner to question no. (14) is not at all justified. The candidate has not drawn an absurd diagram. One & half (1½) mark be awarded to the answer to question no. (14). Yours faithfully, Akhouri B. Prasad. 18/12/84. Head of the Deptt. of Zoology, B. N. College." It is manifest from the report of Dr. Prasad that the candidate is entitled to one mark only in question no. 9 but she is entitled to one mark more to the answer of question no. 2 and Ii marks to question no. 14. In substance according to Dr. Prasad; there has been under-marking to the extent of 2½ marks. 10. On being shown the report of Dr. Prasad, Mr. Mahto appearing for the respondents, firstly contended that Dr. Prasad had no jurisdiction to appraise the entire answer book beyond what was referred to him, i.e., question no. 9. Secondly, Dr. Prasad was not aware of the standard of answer to be expected from the candidates nor he was at home with the system of marking, which was decided by the Moderator and Head Examiner, as envisaged under clause 10 of the Bihar School Examination Board Regulation. He further contended that it appears from the answer book that the Moderator had considered all the answers. The Moderator determines the kind or standard of answers to be expected from the candidate. As required under Regulation 10, the Moderator further decide upon system of marking. The Moderation Board awarded only ½ mark to question no. 9 and it did not think it proper that the candidate should be awarded 2½ marks more as suggested by Dr. Prasad, therefore, the Court should not attach any importance to Dr. Prasad's views. He finally submitted, there being divergence of opinions of the two experts, namely, the Moderation Board, and the expert appointed by the Court, this Court should reject both the opinions, and refuse to interfere with the decision of the Board in public interest. Prasad, therefore, the Court should not attach any importance to Dr. Prasad's views. He finally submitted, there being divergence of opinions of the two experts, namely, the Moderation Board, and the expert appointed by the Court, this Court should reject both the opinions, and refuse to interfere with the decision of the Board in public interest. Learned counsel drew my attention to the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth (A.I.R. 1984 Supreme Court 1543) and contended that the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own view or to verify the correctness of the evaluation made by the examiner. 11. Mr. Sinha appearing for the petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that, in appropriate cases, in ORDER :to advance justice, the Courts shall not shirk to give relief, to which a student is entitled to, when it is proved that the answers given by the students are correct. He referred to the case of Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta (A.I.R. 1983 Supreme Court 1230). Mr. Sinha, learned counsel further contended that it is manifest from Dr. Prasad's report who is an expert in the subject, that the examiner has under-marked the answer paper and the petitioner is entitled to 2½ marks more. The Court having come to learn about it giving of no relief would amount to penalising the student unfairly. 12. Before I consider the respective submissions of the two learned counsel, I would like to refer to clauses 10, 11(b), (c) and (c) of the Regulation." It would appear from the aforesaid provisions that the head examiner and the moderator together determine the kind or standard of answers to be expected from the candidates and decide upon a system of marking. It further appears that the head examiner is entitled to re-examine fifteen per cent of the answer cooks and in case of divergence of standard, the head examiner shall increase or decrease the marks awarded by a co-examiner. The Board of Moderators under Regulation 8 scrutinise the papers set by the paper-setters and/or may suitably modify or substitute such questions as it may deem necessary. The Board of Moderators under Regulation 8 scrutinise the papers set by the paper-setters and/or may suitably modify or substitute such questions as it may deem necessary. The Board of Moderators before whom the answer book was forwarded by the Board, as well as the head-examiner, are the most competent person to express opinion whether the answer rendered by a candidate is in accordance with the decision they had taken or laid down; upon the system of marking and the standard of answers expected from a candidate. Dr. Prasad will not be aware and/or acquainted with the said decision of the Moderator and head examiner, taken at a meeting by them. I, therefore, do not agree with the submission of Mr. Sinha that Dr. Prasad's marking of question no. 2 and question no. 14 should enure to the benefit of his client. The argument of Mr. Mahto that this Court should accept the view expressed by Dr. Prasad with respect to question no. 9 is also not acceptable to me, as it suffers from the same falacy. In between two experts, the view of the expert who is acquainted with the system of marking and being the highest body in this regard, must prevail over the other experts howsoever impartial and high he might be. This is, however, not a reflection on expert's ability, integrity and capability. The argument of Mr. Mahto, learned ccunse1 of the Board, that the Court should reject both the opinions because of divergence of opinion is equally unacceptable because of the self same reason. 13. The next limb of argument of Mr. Mahto is, the Moderator could have awarded mark, only when, any answer is unmarked but he had no jurisdiction to reappraise and revaluate the answer. Question no. 9 had two marks. The examiner awarded one mark. According to Moderator, question nos. 9 (b), 9(c) and 9(d) were correctly answered. This will appear from the green tick given by the Moderator to all these three answers. He, therefore, suggested 1 + ½ = 1½ with respect to the said question. The examiner did not separately mark each of the sub-questions and therefore how can, one correctly conclude that there has been marking of all the four answers to question no. 9. Had the examiner indicated the marks obtained to each of the sub-questions, which the examiner should have done, Mr. The examiner did not separately mark each of the sub-questions and therefore how can, one correctly conclude that there has been marking of all the four answers to question no. 9. Had the examiner indicated the marks obtained to each of the sub-questions, which the examiner should have done, Mr. Mahto would have been correct that the examiner did not omit to mark all the answers and, therefore, the Moderator exceeded in its jurisdiction in reappraising the answers by giving ½ mark. The very fact that the Moderator has ticked three answers as right and awarded plus ½ for the last answer, keeps me in no doubt that there has been an omission in the marking by the examiner. Further, the Board of Moderation being the highest authority of the Board with respect to examination matters and they being aware of their rights and duties, there is a presumption in law that "the official Act has been regularly preformed". 14. I cannot ignore Moderation Board's recommendation on a vague allegation in the counter affidavit that "the Moderation Board had done so only to help the petitioner". The allegation made against the Scrutiny Committee is also vague, as would appear from paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit. It says that "some person interested in the petitioner tried to manipulate the marks" without disclosing further particulars and details. There is no averment in the whole of the counter-affidavit as to why the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary of the Board would try to help the petitioner and what influence the petitioner yielded upon them the Scrutiny Committee and/or the Moderation Board. These are allegations in the nature of mala fide and, therefore, must be pleaded and proved. Party alleging mala fide must lead reliable evidence in support of the said plea. It has been rightly said that "the allegation of malafides are often easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demand proof of high ORDER :of credibility". (See Orissa Cement Ltd. v. Their Workman-1960 (2) LLJ 91 and E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu-AIR 1974 S. C. 555). I am, therefore, of the opinion that the mala fide alleged by the Board against its own two high committees is unacceptable. 15. (See Orissa Cement Ltd. v. Their Workman-1960 (2) LLJ 91 and E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu-AIR 1974 S. C. 555). I am, therefore, of the opinion that the mala fide alleged by the Board against its own two high committees is unacceptable. 15. In Maharastra State Board (Supra), relied upon by the Board, the regulation under challenge contemplated that no candidate shall claim or be entitled to re-valuation of the answer or to inspection of the answer books. The Supreme Court held that regulation 3 under consideration do not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation nor the said provision is void. The Court in that connection further observed that these regulations have been formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and, therefore, Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matter. This is a policy engrafted in the rules or regulation and, therefore, it cannot be held to be ultra vires. In this case, the petitioner is not seeking disclosure of her answer paper nor is she seeking re-valuation of her marks nor the Court is substituting its own views, as to what is wise, prudent or proper and/or re-valuing the answer paper of the candidate. On the contrary, the petitioner demands under the regulation her results should be published in accordance with the finding of the Scrutiny Committee and that of the Moderation Board. The Board admits that the Moderator has got jurisdiction to mark a question which has been omitted to be marked by the examiner. This case, therefore, is of no help to the respondents. On the contrary, in Kanpur University case (Supra), the answer papers were wrongly marked inasmuch as the paper-setter committed error while indicating the key answer to the questions set by him. The High Court held on their own examination that the key answers are incorrect and what are the correct answers to these questions. After having so held allotted marks to the concerned respondents. The Supreme Court "confirmed the directions given by the High Court in regard to the reassessment of the particular questions and admission of the respondents to the M. B. B. S. Course". After having so held allotted marks to the concerned respondents. The Supreme Court "confirmed the directions given by the High Court in regard to the reassessment of the particular questions and admission of the respondents to the M. B. B. S. Course". While so doing, the Supreme Court held it would be unfair to penalise the students if they correctly answered the question and they cannot be made to suffer "injustice in silence". I must, however, sound a note of caution that the Courts must be very loathe in interfering with the public examination in the name of fair play, and re-evaluation are not to be allowed as a matter of courses and of right. In that event the results of public examination once published will not attend finality attached to it. 16. In the instant case, the Chairman has refused to abide by the decision and recommendation of, two of its own high committees. Naturally the question will arise what are the powers and duties of the Chairman qua these committees. On conjoint reading of section 8 and 9 of the Act and rule 10 of the Rules he appears to be the Chief Executive Officer of the Board. On amongst others, it is his duty to see that the act, rules and regulations are faithfully observed and he shall have all the powers necessary for this purpose. His powers, therefore, are akin to the power of Superintendence and/or supervision. Regulations with respect to conduct of examination, mode of appointment and duties of examiner, Scrutiny Committee. Board of Moderation, Head-examiner have been made under section 17 (d) of the Act, duly confirmed by the State Government after prior publication. Chapter v and vi of the regulation specifically deals with examination and matters connected therewith, with which I am concerned in this case. Chairman is no where noticed in these two chapters. He has not been conferred with appellate or revisional power in relation to the decision of the committees connected with the examination of the Board. Under rule 10 he has to decide doubtful cases of admission of the candidates to the examination of the Board in accordance with the regulations, sanction expenditure for various purposes, and subject to control of the Board exercise administrative control over the employees of the Board. Under rule 10 he has to decide doubtful cases of admission of the candidates to the examination of the Board in accordance with the regulations, sanction expenditure for various purposes, and subject to control of the Board exercise administrative control over the employees of the Board. He may also delegate any of his powers to the Secretary of the Board for expeditious disposal of business and efficient working. From the survey of powers and duties of the Chairman as conferred under the Act, Rules and Regulations, I am of opinion that he is not clothed with unlimited prerogative either in the direction of stamping with approval the proceedings of the various statutory committees or in the direction of questioning about and looking to see, if possibly under a fair record, their lies some trace of possible error. The power for implementation and compliance of the acts, rules and regulations will not clothe him with appellate powers over the decision of the Board of moderators nor can he substitute his own JUDGMENT : in place of theirs. In the instant case he has sat on JUDGMENT : over the decision of the Moderation Board and ignored their recommendation, which, in my opinion, is substituting his own JUDGMENT : in place of committee of experts, which is impermissible. The reason for ignoring the decision of the committees constituted for the purpose are not forthcoming beyond vague allegations as already indicated earlier which are unacceptable. 17. The petitioner has statutory right to be communicated of the result of such scrutiny and examinations. The petitioner is being denied this right. What is required to be communicated is the result arrived at by the committees and not that of the Chairman of the Board. There is, therefore, an infringement of the legal right of the petitioner. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution will direct the respondents to communicate to the petitioner the result of the Scrutiny Committee and the Moderation Board rendered, consequent upon her petition for scrutiny of her paper and to award consequential benefit flowing therefrom. 18. I, therefore, issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to disclose the marks obtained by the petitioner after the examination of the paper in Biology by the Scrutiny Committee• and the Moderation Board and to give consequential relief that she is entitled to. 18. I, therefore, issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to disclose the marks obtained by the petitioner after the examination of the paper in Biology by the Scrutiny Committee• and the Moderation Board and to give consequential relief that she is entitled to. Since annexure 1' does not convey the finding of the Scrutiny Committee and the Moderation Board, the same is quashed. The result of the petitioner should be published within one week from the date of this JUDGMENT :. Any further delay will cause irreparable injury to the petitioner. She has suffered enough injury by now. 19. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 250/-.