JUDGMENT S.S. Ahmad, J. - The petitioner had appeared in the High School Examination of the year 1986, conducted by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'). His roll number was 433147. The result of the High School Examination was declared on 30th June 1986 in 'Swatantra Bharat, a daily news paper published from Lucknow. In this news paper the result of the petitioner as also 231 other candidates were shown to have been withheld. However, a provisional mark - sheet was issued to the petitioner, which indicated that he had passed the High School Examination in 1st Division. 2. On 7.8.1986 some officals of the Board are said to have visited the Examination Centre, where the petitioner was called and confronted with a printed form, in which it was set out that the petitioner had used unfair means in the said examination. He was called upon to give reply on the said printed form then and there which was done by him. 3. The charge against the petitioner, as stated above, was that he had used unfair means, in support of which his own answer book of Mathematics - 2 (First Paper) was proposed to be utilised against him in respect of question No.7 (Kha). The petitioner wrote out on the printed chargesheet that while attempting question number 7 (Kha) he had done rough work on that left hand page of the answer book and that if any intermediary steps had not been indicated in the answer to question No.7 (Kha), it was because he had orally calculated those steps. 4. A few months later i.e. on 7.10.1986, an order was issued by which the petitioners result was cancelled and he was declared unsuccessful in the examination in question. This order was served on the petitioner on 14.10.1987. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has filed the present petition has challenged the order of the Board by which his result has been cancelled. 5. This order was served on the petitioner on 14.10.1987. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has filed the present petition has challenged the order of the Board by which his result has been cancelled. 5. A counter - affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Board in which it has been stated that on a complaint received from the Centre Superintendent that the candidates appear in the examination at that Centre had resorted to unfair means, the answer books of the candidates were scrutinised and screened by the subject experts appointed by the Board, who on the basis of evidence available in the answer book submitted a report that the candidates, including the petitioner had used unfair means in the said examination, the matter was thereafter placed before the Results Committee, which resolved to withhold the result of the petitioner as also the result of other students. It is further stated that in the enquiry, which was thereafter conducted, the petitioner was given full opportunity to explain his conduct in respect of the allegations made against him. The matter was considered by the "Nistaran Samiti" of the Board, which came to the conclusion that the petitioner had used unfair means and, therefore, the result of the petitioner was cancelled. The decision of the Samiti was approved by the Chairman of the Board. It is stated in para 14 of the counter affidavit that: - "The petitioner was asked to explain how he could be able to solve the question No.7 Kah of Mathematic - 2 First Paper with wrong steps and without showing the proper method for finding out the squire root of 1421.975. Moreover, in one of the steps he has shown 113756/800 and has devided just thereafter by 80. This shows that he without having full knowledge and procedure of the solution of the question managed by using unfair means to find out the answer. The calculation that he has shown on the left side of the answer book is also to in proper way. This shows that he without having full knowledge and procedure of the solution of the question managed by using unfair means to find out the answer. The calculation that he has shown on the left side of the answer book is also to in proper way. As such the said question arriving at the correct result without showing the requisite inconceivable by any reasonable human being." This has been replied to in para 7 of the rejoinder - affidavit, in which the petitioner, inter alia, has stated as under: - "In hurriedly doing he was confused and he adopted a method which was neither the direct nor short cut. The correct solution of this question by direct as well as short cut method is annexed herewith as Annexure No. R - 6. In this correct solution the answer comes to be 12.47. The petitioner first started by short cut method but then instead of deriving deviation (d) substracting assumed mean (A) from mid point (x) he derived value of Arithmetic mean (m) and then subracted it from mid point (x) as is direct method and then used formula. There are human mistakes in calculation also, so the answer derived is near about 37 which is wrong. If the petitioner indulged in mass copying he could have corrected this answer by using unfair means. Thus in the steps of the question the petitioner committed mistakes due to which the answer obtained by him was also wrong. The charge framed against him that 'with the wrong steps how he arrived at the correct result is quite contrary to the facts and circumstances of the petitioner's case. As it is not applicable to the petitioners case. Actually no charge of using unfair means is made out against the petitioner." 6. The standing counsel has produced before us the original chargesheet and the decision of the Enquiry Committee and the Nistaran Samiti. He has also produced the original answer book of the petitioner. The charge against the petitioner was that although he had given correct answer of question No.7 (Kha) the calculation done by him was wrong as the intermediary steps were missing and incomplete and the rough work done by him did not relate to the question attempted by him. 7. It has been stated by the petitioner in his rejoinder - affidavit that the answer given by him is incorrect. 7. It has been stated by the petitioner in his rejoinder - affidavit that the answer given by him is incorrect. The standing counsel has pointed out that correct answer of question No.7 (Kha) is 12.4. The petitioner's answer that Manak Vichalan' was 37.7 was, therefore incorrect. The charge, therefore, that he had given "correct" answer of the said question in spite of wrong calculation could not, therefore, have been framed against his as his answer was incorrect and wrong which is also reflective of the fact that he had not used unfair means otherwise his answer would have been correct. 8. In any case, the procedure adopted by the Board in making the enquiry into the charge levelled against.the petitioner was not in consonance with the principles of natural justice in as - much - as the recommendation of the Enquiry Committee that the petitioners examination be cancelled was based on the conclusion "GARNA NAHI KIYA KAI, NAKAL KA AAROP PRAMARIT HAI". 9. The original answer book produced before us indicates that the petitioner had done calculation work on the left hand page of the answer book. The Enquiry Committee has, therefore, committed a mistake of fact in saying in its recommendation that "GARNA NAHI KIYA HAI" such a recommendation, which was factually incorrect, could not have legally constituted the basis of the ultimate decision by the Nistaran Samiti or the Chairman of the Board. The decision suffers from error apparent on the face of the record. 10. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 7.10.1986 contained in Annexure 7 is hereby quashed. The Board is directed to declare the result of the petitioner on the basis of the provisional mark - sheet in which he is already shown in the First Division. The Board is also directed to issue a regular mark - sheet to the petitioner.