JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - The petitioner appeared in the High School examination of the year 1984 conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. U.P.. Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Board). His case is that he was declared successful and handed over his mark-sheet, a photostat copy whereof has been attached as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. His further case is that he thereafter got himself admitted in Class XI Science in an Intermediate College at Agra and was pursuing his studies when on 1-4-1985 he received a notice which indicated that by an order passed by the Board his result of the High School examination had been cancelled. A photostat copy of this notice has been attached as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. In this connection the case of the petitioner is that there was a charge against him of using unfair means in answering the last question of Science second paper and that the said charge was suitably replied by him. According to him the decision of the Board cancelling his result is erroneous and the prayer contained in the present writ petition is for the quashing of this decision of the Board cancelling the petitioner's result. 2. The writ petition was presented on 17-4-1985 and on that date the Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent, was required to obtain instructions. The writ petition was taken up for admission on 26-4-1985 and the Standing Counsel produced before us the original show cause notice including the reply of the petitioner and the answer book of the petitioner whose roll number was 16355 as also the answer books of two other examinees whose roll numbers were 16351 and 16356. The show cause notice indicates that there were two charges against the petitioner- (1) that identical answer including mistakes as detailed in the show cause notice had been detected in the solution of question No. 10(a) of Science second paper as given by the petitioner as well as the examinees having roll numbers 16351 and 16356, and (2) that his answer book did not contain the required calculations etc. and yet the correct answer to the question aforesaid had been given. The explanation of the petitioner to the aforesaid charges was that it was due to his mistake that he had not done any rough work. and yet the correct answer to the question aforesaid had been given. The explanation of the petitioner to the aforesaid charges was that it was due to his mistake that he had not done any rough work. In regard to the similarity in the answer including the mistakes in the answer books of the petitioner and of the examinees having roll numbers 16351 and 16356 nothing seems to have been stated by the petitioner. 3. The Committee concerned did not feel satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner as a consequence whereof his result was cancelled. The three answer books referred to above, as already pointed out above, were produced before us. Their perusal indicates that the similarities pointed out in the show cause notice in the three answer books to find place therein. 4. As regards the second charge, as seen above it was the petitioner's own cause that it was due to his mistake that he had not done any rough work. As such it is not possible to take the view that the decision of the committee concerned about the unfair means having been used by the petitioner is arbitrary or based on no material. In this regard it will 'be useful to keep in mind the law laid down in various cases in regard to the scope of the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in such matters. 5. In Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. v. Bagleshwar Prasad, AIR 1966 SC 875 it was held:- "In dealing with petitions of this type, it is necessary to bear in mind that educational institutions like the Universities or appellant No. 1 set up Enquiry Committees to deal with the problem posed by the adoption of unfair means by candidates and normally it is within the jurisdiction of such domestic Tribunals to decide all relevant questions in the light of the evidence adduced before them. In the matter of the adoption of unfair means, direct evidence may sometimes be available, but cases may arise where direct evidence is not available and the question will have to be considered in the light of probabilities and circumstantial evidence. In the matter of the adoption of unfair means, direct evidence may sometimes be available, but cases may arise where direct evidence is not available and the question will have to be considered in the light of probabilities and circumstantial evidence. This problem which educational institutions have to face from time to time is a serious problem and unless there is justification to do so, Courts should be slow to interfere with the decisions of domestic Tribunals appointed by educational bodies like the Universities. In dealing with the validity of the impugned orders passed by Universities under Article 226, the High Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision in question; its jurisdiction is limited and though it is true that if the impugned order is not supported by any evidence at all, the High Court would be justified to quash that order. But the conclusion that the impugned order is not supported by any evidence must be reached after considering the question as to whether probabilities and circumstantial evidence do not justify the said conclusion." 5A. In Trimbak Pati Tripathi v. Board of High School & Intermediate Education, U.P., AIR 1973 All 1 (FB) it was held : "In dealing with the validity of the orders passed by such authorities the High Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the authority concerned. Its jurisdiction is limited, and it is true, that if the order in question is not supported by any evidence at all, the High Court may quash it; but the conclusion that the order in question is not supported by any evidence must be reached after considering the question as to whether probabilities and circumstantial evidence do not justify that conclusion. In this case before us, so far as question No. 1 of Science first paper was concerned, it was brought out that the petitioner had found out the square root of 45.5625 as 6.75 without doing any rough work or calculation. Petitioner explained it by saying that he worked out the square root orally. The Examinations Committee was of opinion that it was not possible to accept the explanation given by the petitioner that he worked out the square root of such a figure orally. Petitioner explained it by saying that he worked out the square root orally. The Examinations Committee was of opinion that it was not possible to accept the explanation given by the petitioner that he worked out the square root of such a figure orally. After rejecting the explanation given by the petitioner it was open to the Examinations Committee to draw an interference that the petitioner has found out the square root by some improper method. It cannot be said that no reasonable person could have rejected the explanation given by the petitioner or that there was no basis for its rejection. Decision of the Examinations Committee was based on the intrinsic evidence provided by petitioner's own answer book, which if unexplained, could lead to an inference that petitioner had used unfair means in answering that question." 6. In Ghazanfar Rashid v. Secy. Board of, High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., AIR 1979 All 209 : 1979 All LJ 676 (FB) it was held : "If the Examinations Committee relying on the probabilities and circumstantial evidence and the intrinsic evidence available in the answer book of the examinee comes to the conclusion that unfair means was used it is outside the jurisdiction of the High Court to reappraise and re-assessee the evidentiary value of those circumstances to take a different view. The Examinations Committee and the Screening Committee are constituted of experts, they are the sole judges to determine the question of use of unfair means on the basis of materials present on record. Their decision cannot be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution unless the decision is mala fide, arbitrary or capricious." 7. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 9538 of 1975, Saraman Lal v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, decided on 5th May, 1976. In that case there were two categories of petitioners. In regard to the first category it was held that an omission to record the intermediate steps before arriving at the conclusion does not necessarily imply that the student must have used unfair means. In other words this circumstance alone is not sufficient to hold that unfair means must have been used. In regard to the first category it was held that an omission to record the intermediate steps before arriving at the conclusion does not necessarily imply that the student must have used unfair means. In other words this circumstance alone is not sufficient to hold that unfair means must have been used. Firstly, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bagleshwar Prasad ( AIR 1966 SC 875 ) (supra) and of this Court in the case of Trimbak Pati Tripathi ( AIR 1973 All 1 ) (FB) (supra) which had already been rendered by then do not seem to have been brought to the notice of the learned single Judge. Secondly, the instant one is not a case where the decision that the petitioner had used unfair means was based only on the circumstance that the intermediate steps had not been written down. In the instant case as already seen above there was another charge that the answer including the mistakes given by the petitioner to the relevant question was identical to those of the examinees having roll numbers 16351 and 16356. In regard to the second category of petitioners after going through the relevant answer books the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that it could not conclusively be held that the answers must have been the result of copying and use of unfair means. So far as the instant case is concerned, as it has already been noticed, the similarities detailed in the show cause notice had found place in all the three answer books referred to above. 8. Counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 12048 of 1975, Udai Prakash Gautam v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, decided on 26th August, 1977. The facts of that case, however, are clearly distinguishable. In that case, as is apparent from the judgment, on the left page the student had attempted to work out the question in pencil and the same answer which he had attempted on the left page had been rewritten on the right page in ink. In the instant case, however, no such attempt whatsoever was made by the petitioner and the answer was given by him, which according to the show cause notice was not possible. In the instant case, however, no such attempt whatsoever was made by the petitioner and the answer was given by him, which according to the show cause notice was not possible. Moreover, unlike the instant case there was no charge in that case that the answer including mistakes of the petitioner was identical to the answer including mistakes of some other examinees which indicated copying. 9. Lastly reliance was placed by counsel for the petitioner on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 4714 of 1984, Vijai Kumar v. Board of High School, decided on 2nd April, 1985. In that case after going through the relevant answer books it was held that no reasonable inference could be drawn that the petitioner had copied from the answer books of the other two students and that it was a case where there was no evidence to establish that the petitioner had indulged in copying. This decision is apparently distinguishable on the facts of the instant case. 10. Counsel for the petitioner then urged that in the instant case no report had been made about use of unfair means either by the invigilator or by the Superintendent of the Centre concerned. In our opinion this circumstance is not at all relevant inasmuch as nothing has been brought to our notice that action for using unfair means cannot be taken in the absence of a report of the invigilator or of the Superintendent of the centre even if while examining the answer books the examiner is satisfied on the material before him that unfair means had been adopted. 11. Counsel for the petitioner then urged that since the petitioner had already taken admission in class XI Science and had been pursuing his studies when he was served on 1-4-1985 with the notice indicating that the result of his High School examination had been cancelled, the impugned order would work out hardship on the petitioner inasmuch as his one year will be wasted. So far as this submission is concerned it may be pointed out that the Board conducts examinations on a very large scale in which lacs of examinees participate. The number of examinees against whom there are charges of using unfair means is also fairly large and passing final orders in such cases after following the procedure prescribed therefor involves considerable time. The number of examinees against whom there are charges of using unfair means is also fairly large and passing final orders in such cases after following the procedure prescribed therefor involves considerable time. The effect of withholding the result of such examinees against whom there was a charge of using unfair means resulted in hardship to such of the examinees who were ultimately exonerated from the said charge inasmuch as due to the time consuming process involved in the decision of such cases, by the time an examinee was exonerated the opportunity to take admission in the next higher class was lost and an year of the examinee got wasted. It has been brought to our notice by the Standing Counsel that in order to mitigate this hardship a direction was issued by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 10276 of 1983 on 19-9-1983 (reported in 1983 UPLBEC 695) that the mark-sheet of even those examinees against whom there was charge of using unfair means should be provisionally supplied. The purpose of this direction obviously was that such examinees may on the basis of the provisional mark-sheets, obtain admission in the next higher class and continue their studies subject to the result of the inquiry of the charge of using unfair means so that if ultimately they were exonerated of that charge they may be saved from the hardship of losing one year. According to the Standing Counsel the Board in compliance of the aforesaid direction started issuing provisional mark- sheets to those examinees also whose results had been withheld on account of pendency of certain inquiries including an inquiry into a charge of use of unfair means. He further brought it to our notice that the Board got a rubber stamp prepared for this purpose which was affixed on the mark-sheets which were being provisionally issued in pursuance of the aforesaid direction of this Court. According to him this rubber-stamp was affixed on the mark-sheet of the petitioner also. A perusal of Annexure 1 to the writ petition substantiates this submission of the Standing Counsel. Since, however, the contents of the rubber-stamp on the photostat copy of the mark-sheet of the petitioner filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition were partly blurred we required the Standing Counsel to supply to us the contents of the said rubber seal which he did. Since, however, the contents of the rubber-stamp on the photostat copy of the mark-sheet of the petitioner filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition were partly blurred we required the Standing Counsel to supply to us the contents of the said rubber seal which he did. These contents as transliterated in roman alphahates are as follows : "(Ka) "Yah prakaran W./W.B./W.E./ S.L./W.K. Suchi Ke antargat parishad ke vicharadhin hai" (Kha) "Manniya Uchcha Nyayalaya dwara Yachika Sankhya 10276/83 men dinak 19-9-83 ko diya gave adeshantargat asthai anka patra nirgat kiya ja raha hai." 12. Clause (Ka) contains the various categories under which the case of the examinee concerned is under consideration. One of these categories is "W.B.". Clause (Kha) indicates that provisional mark-sheet is being issued in pursuance of the direction of the High Court dated 19-9-1983 in Writ Petn. No. 10276 of 1983 (reported in 1983 UPLBEC 695). 13. A perusal of Annexure 2 to the Writ petition indicates that the result of the petitioner had been withheld as there was a charge against him falling under category "W.B." aforesaid. The petitioner has not been able to substantiate his case that he had been declared successful from any material other than the issue of the provisional mark-sheet, a photostat copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The circumstances in which the aforesaid provisional mark-sheet had been issued has already been indicated above. Within category "W.B." referred to in Annexure 2 to the writ petition come inter alia those cases where use of unfair means has been detected by the examiner and a report has been submitted by him in this behalf. The petitioner in the circumstances, pointed out above cannot obviously claim any benefit on the ground of the issue of the provisional mark-sheet to him and on the ground that he had taken admission in class XI Science in pursuance of the said mark-sheet and had been pursuing his studies till he was served with the notice indicating that the result of his High School examination had been cancelled. Had the petitioner been exonerated of the charge of using unfair means the issue of the provisional mark-sheet would have achieved its purpose and one year of the petitioner would have been saved. Had the petitioner been exonerated of the charge of using unfair means the issue of the provisional mark-sheet would have achieved its purpose and one year of the petitioner would have been saved. In the instant case the charge having been found to have been established against the petitioner the waste of one year is inevitable. 14. It was then urged by counsel for the petitioner that since the order cancelling the result of his High School examination has been served on the petitioner on 1-4-1985 he has been deprived of appearing again in the High School examination as a private candidate. Suffice it to point out so far as this submission is concerned that when the result of the petitioner was withheld and he was issued only a provisional mark-sheet in pursuance of the direction of this Court referred to above and he had taken admission in Class XI Science on the basis of such provisional mark-sheet, the petitioner was obviously aware with the possibility of the charge of using unfair means being found to have been established and as a consequence thereof the result of his examination being cancelled. There was nothing to debar the petitioner from appearing in the High School examination of the year 1985 as a private candidate. Consequently it was open to the petitioner to have appeared in the High School examination in the year 1985 as a private candidate by way of abundant caution. If he failed to do so it hardly lies in his mouth to complain about his being deprived from appearing in the High School examination of 1985 as a private candidate. 15. Lastly, it was urged by counsel for the petitioner that a direction may be issued to the Board to permit the petitioner to appear in the supplementary examination that may be held in connection with the High School examination of the year 1985. No rule which may indicate that an examinee such as the petitioner is entitled to appear in the supplementary examination has been brought to our notice. No rule which may indicate that an examinee such as the petitioner is entitled to appear in the supplementary examination has been brought to our notice. However, we wish to make it clear that if there are any rules which entitle the petitioner to appear in the supplementary examination which may be held by the Board in connection with the High School examination for the year 1985, the petitioner shall be permitted to appear in such an examination and avail of the facility provided in this behalf by the relevant rules. 16. No other point has been pressed. 17. In the result we find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.