JUDGMENT : D.S. Bajpai, J. Since all these writ Petitions involve same question of law, we propose to dispose of these writ Petitions by this common judgment. 2. Sanjay Srivastava and 31 others have filed Writ Petition No. 7396 of 1986 Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing the decision of the opposite party No. 1 Madhyamik Shiksha Praishad, U.P. Allahabad dated 7-10-86 contained in Annexure-18 to the writ petition cancelling their results of the High School Examination of the year 1986. The facts briefly stated by the Petitioner are that they were regular students of the High School and appeared as such from Government Inter College, Rae Bareli and their examination centre was Mahatma Gandhi Inter College, Rae Bareli. The result of the examination was published in 'Swatantra Bharat' Lucknow daily on 30-6-86 and in this the result of the Petitioners as also about 202 other students who appeared at the said examination from the same centre was withheld on the ground that they had allegedly done mass copying and had adopted unfair means at the examination. Further it is stated that the Petitioners were called upon to appear at the centre on a particular date to show cause before the enquiry committee as to why their cases be not recommended for cancellation of their results. Provisional mark sheets were, however, in the meantime issued to some of the Petitioners which have been brought on record of the writ petition as annexures 2 to 17. It is not necessary for us to point out so to what marks and divisions were obtained by the Petitioners, as indicated by the said provisional mark sheets. It will, however, be pertinent to point out that subsequent to the enquiry the result of all the Petitioners were cancelled for the year 1986 by the impugned order of the opposite party No. 1. The Petitioners have indicated that their results were cancelled on the ground that the Petitioners had used unfair means in Chemistry Paper II, Questions 4 (Kha) and 4 (gha) inasmuch as they had indicated answers correctly while the steps as worked out by them were not complete and correct and that the rough calculation made by them were also not complete and in circumstances they could not support the answers indicated by them. The students, however, replied on the spot on being served the questionnaire and some of them replied that they had" worked out the question properly while the others indicated that they had studied those questions and as a matter of fact prepared and can answer those questions as well as such other questions by heart and can tell it outright without detailed calculations being made in reply to the questions. While cancelling the result of the Petitioners, opposite party No. 1 Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, on the other hands, is said to have allowed certain representations made for reconsideration by Petitioners 7, 11, 22 and 25 and while allowing the representations declared them successful in the High School Examination of 1986 in which all the Petitioners had been declared to have failed on account of use of unfair means. The orders allowing the representations of the said Petitioners as also many other candidates similarly charged of using unfair means have been brought on record as Annexures R-l, R-2 and R-3 of the rejoinder affidavit of the Petitioners dated November 10, 1987. 3. In Writ Petition No. 7397 of 1986 filed by Ajai Trivedi and 8 others, Petitioners 1 to 6 and 8 were charged of using unfair means in Chemistry II paper Question 4 (kha) and 4 (gha) while Petitioners 7 and 9 were charged of using unfair means in Mathematics I paper Question No. 4 (Kha). 4. In Writ Petition No. 7398 of 1966 Mahendra Kumar and 7 others, Petitioners 1 to 4, 6 and 7 were charged of using unfair means in Science-2 II paper question No. 4 (Kha), Petitioner No. 5 and 6 in Science-2 Paper II Question No. 4 (ga), while Petitioner No. 8 was charged of using unfair means in Maths-2 Paper I Question No. 4 (Kha) and English II paper Question No. 3-A. Petitioner No. 1 Mahendra Kumar was further charged of using unfair means in Maths-2 I Paper Question No. 4 (ga), Petitioner No. 2 in Science-2 II Paper Question No. 4 (ga), Petitioner No. 3 in Science-2 II paper Question No. 4 (ga), and Maths-2 I paper Question No. 4 (Kha), Petitioner No. 4 in Maths-2 I paper Question No. 4 (Kha), while the Petitioner No. 7 was further charged of using unfair means in Maths-2 II paper Question No. 4 (Kha). 5. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has attacked the order of cancellation of the result on various grounds. Suffice to say that one of the contention on which we propose to decide the present writ Petition and which goes to the root of the matter has been that in view of the fact that the representations of certain students and in particular the Petitioner Nos. 7, 11, 22 and 25 of writ Petition No. 7396 of 1986 having been allowed by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and they having been declared successful at the examination, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad was bound to consider the cases of all other Petitioners also in the light of the representations made by Petitioners 7, 11, 22 and 25. It has not been disputed before us that the result of the Petitioners 7, 11, 22 and 25 that have been declared after cancellation of their results earlier and even after filing of the instant writ Petition, were similarly placed and circumstanced as the remaining Petitioners. The law is well settled that no discrimination can be done, in the matter of cancellation of result also. Since the examination committee and for that purpose the enquiry committee and screening committee constituted under the regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act functions as a quasi-judicial authority, it cannot discriminate from person to person and in particular the students who were similarly placed and circumstanced and whose fortunes have to be decided by these committees on the basis of their performance at their examination. In the case of Uma Shanker Dubey v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. at Allahabad 1986 UP LB EC 500 this Court held "since that mistakes were common and same charge was framed against both the candidates, the Respondent Board could not take action only against the Petitioner. The Respondents have failed to show any reason in distinguishing the Petitioner's case with that of the other candidate having roll No. 857739. In our opinion the Petitioner has been discriminated without there being any justification for the same." 6. In writ Petition Nos. 7397 and 7398 of 1986 also the learned Counsel for the Petitioners placed reliance on the declaration of results of Petitioners 7, 11, 22 and 25 in Writ Petition No. 7396 of 1986, who were similarly placed and circumstanced and have been declared successful to the filing of the writ Petition. 7. In writ Petition Nos. 7397 and 7398 of 1986 also the learned Counsel for the Petitioners placed reliance on the declaration of results of Petitioners 7, 11, 22 and 25 in Writ Petition No. 7396 of 1986, who were similarly placed and circumstanced and have been declared successful to the filing of the writ Petition. 7. In the case in hand we have already indicated above that the charge against all the Petitioners was the same and they were similarly placed and circumstanced and the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, no doubt, by accepting the representations of four Petitioners and re-declaring them as successful has definitely discriminated against the remaining Petitioners and thus bad in law and cannot be allowed to stand. 8. Before parting with this case, we are constrained to observe that lacs of students appear every year before the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad and the machinery of examining these students is so poor and so inadequate that every year there are numerous instances of leakage of examination papers and use of unfair means on account of laxity of supervision of the Parishad to control the examination over the examination centres which run in hundreds and spread over all parts of the State. Further, the machinery of examining the answer books is also inadequate and the examination and evaluation of the answer books is not in consonance with the principle of fair play and justice inasmuch as the answer books are examined at different centres and there is no coordination in that which after results in the cancellation of results and that too on insufficient material and on no rationale. We strongly feel that the examination of the Board should be decentralised and we sincerely hope that keeping in view the cause of education and interest of the students who appear in lacs in these examinations, the State Government would take appropriate steps to decentralise the examinations and get them conducted in a manner that will serve the best interest of the people in particular the students. 9. With the above observations, the impugned orders contained in Annexures 18, 6 and 7 of the Writ Petition Nos. 7396, 7397 and 7398 of 1986 respectively are hereby quashed and the opposite party No. 1 is commanded to declare the result of the Petitioners (excluding the Petitioners whose results have already been declared). 9. With the above observations, the impugned orders contained in Annexures 18, 6 and 7 of the Writ Petition Nos. 7396, 7397 and 7398 of 1986 respectively are hereby quashed and the opposite party No. 1 is commanded to declare the result of the Petitioners (excluding the Petitioners whose results have already been declared). We, however, direct the parties to bear their own costs.