BEHERA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner appeared at the Annual High School Certificate Examination held in April, 1984 as an ex-regular candidate of the Gopabandhu Memorial High School, Danda-Mukundapur, Civics was his extra optional subject. On April 18, 1984, the last date of the examination, the petitioner had been appearing for the extra optional subject. For his alleged possession of two sheets of paper relating to the examination in respect of another optional subject, namely, physiology and Hygiene, for which a report was made by the Centre Superintendent, the matter was examined by the Malpractice Committee and the Examination Committee cancelled his result and debarred him from appearing at any examination prior to the Annual Examination of the year 1985. The petitioner has challenged this decision on the grounds that there was no material whatsoever against the petitioner of having resorted to any malpractice and the impugned punishment had been inflicted on him without affording to him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Board of Secondary Education, in its return, has supported the stand taken by it while coming to the decision against the petitioner. ( 2 ) WE have heard Dr. Dash for the petitioner and Mr. Swamy for the opposite party. The question for consideration would be as to whether the decision of the Examination Committee could be taken on the materials placed before it. If two views, one in favour of the petitioner and the other against him, are reasonably possible, this Court is not to interfere in its extraordinary jurisdiction. We, however, notice, for the reasons to follow, that the impugned decision cancelling the result of the petitioner and debarring him to sit at any examination prior to the Annual Examination of the year 1985 had been taken unjustifiably without any materials. The petitioner had Civics as his extra optional subject and not Physiology and Hygiene. It has been submitted by Mr. Swamy for the opposite party that if incriminating materials are in possession of or are used by a candidate in respect of any paper for which he has not himself been appearing, it would still amount to malpractice. In the instant case, however, there was no material that the petitioner was in possession of the two sheets of incriminating articles. Swamy for the opposite party that if incriminating materials are in possession of or are used by a candidate in respect of any paper for which he has not himself been appearing, it would still amount to malpractice. In the instant case, however, there was no material that the petitioner was in possession of the two sheets of incriminating articles. In the report against the petitioner which has been shown to us at the hearing by the learned counsel for the opposite party, it had been stated as against column 9 :"particulars of the incriminating material recovered from the candidate (if the incriminating material consists of writings on walls, desks, body of the candidate etc. such that it cannot be sent in original, certified copies of such writings should be forwarded ). The incriminating material (s) should invariably bear the signature of the Centre Superintendent with Roll Number: -the candidate was found using an extract of the Test paper seized by the Superintendent himself while going round the room. The extract (incriminating material) enclosed. "against column 11 "nature of Offence committed", it was, however mentioned : "it is suspected that he might have used the material. " it had been stated in column 10 thereof that the material had been discovered underneath the buttocks of the petitioner on suspicion. In column 20, the Centre Superintendent had stated thus : "i am convinced that the candidate used the incriminating material beforehand and could not remove from the place it was detected. " this would clearly show that he had not actually seen the use of any incriminating materials by the petitioner. There was no material other than those mentioned in the report to which reference has been made above. It cannot be said from these materials that the petitioner had indulged in any malpractice for himself or that he had taken to the examination hall or had kept in his possession incriminating materials for use by any other candidate. In our view, the decision taken against the petitioner is based on no material and to allow it to stand would be perpetuating injustice done to the petitioner. In our view, the decision taken against the petitioner is based on no material and to allow it to stand would be perpetuating injustice done to the petitioner. ( 3 ) IN the view we have taken on this question, we do not feel ourselves called upon to go into the other question with regard to the violation of the principle of natural justice in that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of being heard. ( 4 ) IN the result, therefore, the writ application is allowed and the decision taken by the opposite party against the petitioner is quashed. The opposite party is called upon to examine the extra optional answer paper of the petitioner in Civics and then publish his result. These directions shall be carried out within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the writ. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. P. C. MISRA, J. : - I agree. Writ application allowed. .