JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, A.C.J. and B.L. Loomba, J. - On 7th November, 1985 the respondent Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad was granted two weeks time and no more to file counter affidavit. However, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Board has produced the original record for perusal of the court. We have accordingly proceeded to finally dispose of the writ petition on the basis of the record produced by the Board before it. 2. The petitioner appeared in the High School Examination for the session 1983-84 as a regular student of Markande Higher Secondary School Keithi, Varanasi, and his result was declared on provisional basis subsequently it was cancelled vide order dated 19th March, 1985 on the ground that he had used unfair means in answering question No. 5-Kha of General Mathematics 2nd paper. 3. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Main submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that there was admittedly no material before the Board on the basis of which it could have come to the conclusion that the petitioner had used unfair means in answering the said question. 4. In question No. 5 `Kha' of General Mathematics, 2nd Paper, the candidate was required to prove that when either in equal circles or in one circle if two area are equal the chord on those area would also be equal. A perusal of the answer book of the petitioner shows that the petitioner had done certain working. Various steps mentioned in that working appear to be meaningless and without any sense. However, the Board concluded that the petitioner had used unfair means inasmuch as he did the said working without supporting the same by any diagram. According to the Board in absence of supporting diagram such working was not possible unless the candidate had used unfair means in the said examination. 5. We have carefully looked into the answer given by the petitioner and we find that the supposed working by the candidate cannot be borne out by any diagram whatsoever. Moreover as stated earlier the said working appear to be meaningless. The candidate does not even purport to prove what he was required to prove in the said question. 5. We have carefully looked into the answer given by the petitioner and we find that the supposed working by the candidate cannot be borne out by any diagram whatsoever. Moreover as stated earlier the said working appear to be meaningless. The candidate does not even purport to prove what he was required to prove in the said question. Of course if the working done by the petitioner had been correct and could have been supported by a diagram, and he had proved whatever he was required to prove, an inference that he had used unfair means in the said examination might have been drawn. But there is a case where the working is incorrect and meaningless and the candidate does not reach the conclusion as required by the question, it would not be possible to conclude that the candidate has used unfair means merely on the basis of such wrong working. In our opinion, on the basis of the material before the Board, by reasonable person can conclude that the petitioner was guilty of unfair means. The order cancelling the petitioner's result on the said basis therefore cannot be `sustained. 6. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 19th March, 1985 cancelling petitioner's High School result for the year 1983-84 is quashed and the respondents are directed to issue regular mark-sheet to the petitioner.