JUDGMENT S.N. Jha, J. The petitioner, who appeared in the 30th Combined Competitive Examination (hereinafter referred to as the "Examination") held by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the "Commission''), has prayed for quashing of Annexure-1, by which the Commission has taken a decision to cancel the answer books of the petitioner. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this application, in short, are that the Commission issued an advertisement for holding the said examination for the posts in the Bihar State Service including the Bihar Police Service. The petitioner applied for the same and after having been issued necessary Admit Card bearing Roll No. R 375 appeared at the said examination during the period from Ist to 6th February, 1982. The compulsory subjects in which the petitioner was examined were General Hindi General Knowledge and General Science and the optional subjects were Indian History, World History and Urdu Literature. The petitioner appeared at the said examination during all these six days and wrote down his answer books and submitted the same at the end of the examination within the stipulated time to the invigilators in the examination hall. 3. The petitioner was declared to have passed at the examination which was published by Commission in all the local news papers of Patna on the 25th May, 1983. Thereafter the petitioner received a communication from the Commission dated 14th June, 1983 asking him to appear before the Commission for a viva voce test scheduled to be held on the 23rd July, 1983. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid communication, the petitioner appeared before the Commission for the viva voce test on the 23rd July, 1983 and on that date he was interviewed by the Members of the Commission. 5. When the final result of the said examination was published by the Commission on 21st December, 1983, the petitioner did not find his name in the said result and he applied to the Commission to furnish with the marks obtained by him, which according to the petitioner the Commission generally supplies to the candidates on request, but the petitioner was not supplied with the marks inspite of three applications filed by him. 6. 6. From the statements made in the writ application, it appears that thereafter the petitioner filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in this Court bearing C.W.J.C. No. 285 of 1984 for a writ directing the Commission to declare the petitioner's result including the petition in order of merit obtained by this petitioner amongst the list of successful candidates for the Bihar Police Service. The grievance to the petitioner in the said writ application was that although he has obtained 632 marks he has not been recommended for appointment, although persons, who have obtained 625 marks have been recommended for appointment. A counter affidavit was also filed on behalf of the Commission in the said writ application stating that on the basis of certain complaints the answer books of the petitioner were re-examined and the Commission came up to the conclusion that unfair means has been used by the petitioner. The said matter was disposed of by a Bench of this Court by order dated 26th April, 1984 a copy of which is Annexure-2 appended to this application. This Court allowed the said writ application to the extent that the Commission should give a notice to the petitioners in respect of the alleged use of unfair means (with details) and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file show cause, take final decision in the matter. 7. It appears that after the disposal of the aforesaid writ application, the Commission issued show cause notice to the petitioner leveling certain charges against him, which is Annexure-9 appended to this writ application. In the said show cause notice, it was stated that the Commission received certain complaints against the petitioner announcing that he would become the Deputy Superintendent of Police by spending money. It was also mentioned that on the basis of the complaint when thorough scrutiny of the answer books of the petitioner was made, it was revealed that the petitioner has adopted unfair means because certain irregularities were found in the answer books of the petitioner, namely, the additional books of three papers and one in main paper, there was no signature of the invigilator and the style of writing of the petitioner was also not normal i.e. the hand writing in the additional copies were better than the main answer books. 8. 8. In pursuance of the said show cause notice, the petitioner filed his reply on 28th May, 1984, which is Annexure-10 appended to this writ application. The petitioner in his reply to the show cause stated that there was nothing unusual in what was done by him in his answer books and the inference of the Commission is not tenable. 9. It further appears that the Commission served supplementary show cause notice to the petitioner on the 22nd June, 1984, which the petitioner received on the 28th June, 1984 which is Annexure-11 appended to this writ application. In this show cause notice the Commission further gave clarification regarding other matters (ANYA BATEN). In Clause 'KHA' of the said show cause notice, it is stated that the absence of signature of the invigilator on the main and additional answer books of General Bindi, two additional answer books of Urdu Literature and three additional answer books of Indian History, clearly shows that the petitioner bas adopted unfair means by annexing the answer books in conspiracy with some outsiders after the examination was over. 10. In the first show cause reply the petitioner's stand was that the Commission did not require the candidate to ensure the signature of the invigilator and if the invigilator fails to sign, the petitioner cannot be penalised for the same. Regarding nature of hand writing and its manner, the petitioner's reply was that the Commission cannot presume anything adverse against the petitioner. Normally the students always revised their papers and corrections and cuttings are made from the beginning. The petitioner after having received the second show cause notice again denied the charges and reiterated his earlier stand already made in the reply to the first show cause notice. Thereafter came Annexure-1 which is under challenge in this writ application. 11. A long and detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Commission (Respondent no. 1) refuting all the allegations made by the petitioner. In the said counter affidavit, it has been stated that on 12th April, 1983 one. Shri Satyendra Jha and others sent a complaint letter addressed to the Governor of Bihar with a copy to the Chief Minister Bihar, the Chairman, Public Service Commission, the Secretary of the Commission and the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Intelligence Department, alleging certain allegations against the petitioner. Shri Satyendra Jha and others sent a complaint letter addressed to the Governor of Bihar with a copy to the Chief Minister Bihar, the Chairman, Public Service Commission, the Secretary of the Commission and the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Intelligence Department, alleging certain allegations against the petitioner. On receipt of the same, enquiry was made by a senior I.A.S. Officer, who reported that on perusal of the answer books of the petitioner, it transpired that the petitioner had used unfair means. In the said complaint allegation was also made against one Sanjeevan Sharma, the then Additional Assistant Secretary, who was incharge of the said competitive examination. From the office record it transpired that the petitioner bad also appeared earlier in the 28th Combined Competitive Examination and in written examination be has secured only 337 marks. The Chairman of the Commission as constituted a special committee consisting of the then senior Members of the Commission, namely, Shri K.M. zuberi and Singheshwar Prasad for the purpose of scrutiny in respect of the candidates called for viva voce test. In course of this scrutiny the said Committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner besides a few others, had used unfair means, therefore, the answer books of the petitioner at that very stage were kept in a sealed cover with signature of the above two persons, who had conducted scrutiny of the answer papers. 12. Another complaint petition dated 18th July, 1983 was received by the Chairman on the 20th July, 1983 in the name of Shri Rajendra Prasad, Punaichak, Patna making certain allegations against the petitioner. On this complaint also, the endorsement was made by the Chairman to the effect that an enquiry be made. The Officer on Special Duty of the Commission submitted a note pointing out that the petitioner had been called for personal interview on the 23rd July, 1983. Therefore, he suggested that the said complaint may be placed before the Interview Board and certain, interrogatories were framed to be put to the candidates at the time of interview and this was accordingly done when the petitioner appeared before the Interview Board. He was asked about the manner of his writing besides questions put to him to test his merit. The petitioner was also asked by the Interview Board to write a resume of the interview in Hindi. 13. He was asked about the manner of his writing besides questions put to him to test his merit. The petitioner was also asked by the Interview Board to write a resume of the interview in Hindi. 13. From the counter affidavit it appears that a third complaint was also received in the name of Shri Awadhesh Kumar, Advocate. In this complaint letter some more allegations were made, namely, the petitioner, who was a Government teacher had been suspended by the Director Secondary Education Board and a first information report had also been filed against him in Kotwali Police Station. It was also stated in that complaint that against this suspension order the petitioner had filed C.W.J.C. No. 2296 of 1983, which is pending in this Court. 14. On 21st November, 1983 the Commission held its meeting to consider the matter with regard to the allegations levelled against the petitioner and on the basis of materials available on record, the Commission was convinced that the petitioner had used unfair means and, therefore, the Commission ordered that the answer books of the petitioner should be cancelled. In view of the decision of the Commission the answer books of the petitioner were cancelled and his name did not find mention in the list of the finally successful candidates. 15. The allegations of favourtism and mala fides have also been made in the application. The Respondent Commission has also refuted these allegations in the counter affidavit. It was stated in the counter affidavit that the allegations made by the petitioner with regard to the mala fide of the Commission are preposterous and baseless. The plea of the petitioner that his case was selected for cancellation in order to favour another candidate has no credibility, As a matter of fact, his case was not the solitary case, in which the decision was taken to cancel the answer books. Such decision was taken in several cases in ordinary course of the business of the Commission, the before the plea of the petitioner is futile and baseless. 16. Such decision was taken in several cases in ordinary course of the business of the Commission, the before the plea of the petitioner is futile and baseless. 16. I have already indicated above that the petitioner moved this Court making the grievance that without applying the principles of natural justice the Commission came to the conclusion that unfair means has been adopted fused by the petitioner and this Court allowed the writ application to the extent that notice be given to the petitioner in respect of the alleged use of unfair means with details and after giving opportunity to the petitioner to file show cause the Commission should take a final decision in the matter. 17. In pursuance of the said order of this Court show cause notices were issued and the petitioner also filed his reply and the Commission after careful consideration of the same passed the impugned order. 18. Mr. Basudeva Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner bas contended that the impugned order is not in accordance with the direction given by this Court in the said writ application. It was further contended that no reason at all has been assigned in the impugned order. Neither any facts alleged nor any evidence either circumstantial or otherwise are mentioned in the impugned order to justify the conclusion or to justify the cancellation of the answer books of the petitioner. The impugned order is arbitrary in nature, smacks of mala fide of the Commission against the petitioner and there is no power vested in the Commission to cancel the answer books. If there is any power, the power is only not to declare the result of the candidate. 19. In support of the contentions raised by Mr. Prasad, it was submitted that when the petitioner having found that his name was not included in the final result of the said competitive examination, even though according to the petitioner he had done very well he applied to the Commission to furnish with the marks obtained by him, but the petitioner was not supplied with-the marks inspite of three applications and he found a hush-hush associated with his name whenever he went to the Commission's office. Thereafter the petitioner came to know that on the 12th October, 1983, the Commission had circulated to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Bihar, the Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi, all the Commissioners and the Secretaries of the different departments of the State and all the State Public Service commissions, the names of such candidates, who had adopted unfair means at the said competitive examination and who had been debarred from the next four examinations, but in those list of 28 candidates the petitioner's name was not mentioned as one of the candidates who has been found to have adopted unfair means. The learned counsel pointed out that under the Rules and Circulars of the Commission, there are different stages at which adoption of unfair means by the candidates are detected. Ono is at the examination hall, where a candidate so detected is expelled from the examination hall by the invigilator and his name is reported by the Central Superintendent to the Commission. The next stage is where the answer books or the candidates are examined by the examiner and the head examiner and if any thing unusual is noticed by the co-examiner in the answer books, the same must be reported to the head examiner, but no report was sent against the petitioner regarding unfair means either by any invigilator, co-examiner or the head examiner in regard to his answer books nor any adverse remark was made regarding any suspicious handwriting, as required under the Rules. It was also pointed out that till the middle of December, 1983, there was nothing to the Commission Office regarding, the petitioner's conduct in the said examination inasmuch as on the basis of the result of the written examination and the viva voce test, the Commission had communicated to the Government of Bihar in the Department of Home that the name of the petitioner was one of the successful candidates, but all of a sudden, when the list of successful candidate, (Annexure-5) was prepared, it transpired that the answer books of the petitioner was cancelled vide Commission's decision dated 20th December, 1983. 20. According to the petitioner when Rule was issued to the Commission in C.W.J.C. No. 285 of 1984, the Commission appeared on 12th March, 1984, but did not file any counter affidavit. 20. According to the petitioner when Rule was issued to the Commission in C.W.J.C. No. 285 of 1984, the Commission appeared on 12th March, 1984, but did not file any counter affidavit. On the prayer of the counsel for the Commission, the case was adjourned to 26th March, 1984 and against to 30th March, 1984. but cause was not shown till then by the Commission. The Commission filed a counter affidavit in the said writ application on the 4th April, 1984, and in the said counter affidavit, according to the petitioner the Commission for the first time brought out the facts alleging that the complaints were received in the Commission Office that the petitioner had been telling people that he would become Deputy Superintendent of Police since he has spent money for the same. It was also stated in the said counter affidavit that on the basis of thorough scrutiny both on the officers' level and Commission level, it was revealed that the answer books of the petitioner was a case of adoption of unfair means, inasmuch as some of the additional answer books in the subjects of examination did not bear the signature of invigilator and the style of writing of the answer books by the petitioner was also not in manner in which it should have been, in the opinion of the Commission. The petitioner was never informed till then about the reasons for not publishing his result nor the petitioner had been served with any show cause. 21. It was vehemently argued that in the counter affidavit filed earlier it was stated that the Commission was satisfied that the petitioner had adopted unfair means but it is not spelt out in the counter affidavit whether the decision was taken by the full Commission or by the Chairman alone. It was urged that under the Constitution the Commission is one statutory body and when a decision, specially an important decision like one in the instant case, was taken, it was necessary for the entire Commission to have been taken into confidence in the matter, but this was not done in the present case. 22. It was urged that under the Constitution the Commission is one statutory body and when a decision, specially an important decision like one in the instant case, was taken, it was necessary for the entire Commission to have been taken into confidence in the matter, but this was not done in the present case. 22. The learned counsel urged that as the Commission having already cancelled the name of the petitioner from the list of successful candidates on the 20th December, 1983, the direction contained in the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 285 of 1983, was taken by the Commission as a mere formality to confirm its earlier decision of cancellation of the petitioner's name from the list of successful candidates by formal issuance of a show cause notice. The direction of this Court has not been carried out in accordance with law. According to the learned counsel the general instructions issued to the candidates by the Commission did not require a candidate to ensure that the invigilator gave his signature on the main paper books and the additional paper books and in some cases if the invigilators fail to perform their duty, the candidate cannot be penalised for the latches and carelessness on their part. So far as the nature of hand writing of the petitioner on the answer books is concerned the Commission had only presumed something. There can be no fixed rule that the hand writing of the candidates at the initial must be very good and at the subsequent stage it would deteriorate. It all depends upon the candidates, who in their anxiety want to complete the paper may make speedy start from the very beginning with the result that the hand writing may not by very good but later on when the candidates find enough time, their hand writing may improve. On these submissions, it was urged that the Commission has only patched up the loop holes, it had already created by surreptitious cancellation of the petitioner's name, on the ground that he had adopted unfair means. According to the learned counsel the impugned order also suffers from legal infirmities as no reason, whatsoever, has been assigned in the impugned order. Therefore, it is fit to be quashed. 23. In support of his contention the learned counsel has relied upon a number of decisions. According to the learned counsel the impugned order also suffers from legal infirmities as no reason, whatsoever, has been assigned in the impugned order. Therefore, it is fit to be quashed. 23. In support of his contention the learned counsel has relied upon a number of decisions. It was submitted that when any administrative order is passed affecting the rights of a citizen, it is a quasi-judicial order and such order must be speaking one. According to him recording of reasons in support of a decision by a quasi-judicial authority is obligatory as it ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not result of any caprice or whim. Reliance had been placed on a decision in the case of M/s Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others reported in A.I.R. 1970 Supreme Court, page 1302. In the aforesaid case the appellants held a licence under U.P. Dealers' Licensing Order, (1962), to deal in sugar as wholesale distributor. By letter the appellants were informed that the District Magistrate has cancelled their licence as dealers in sugar and flour. The appellants applied for a copy of the order, but it was not supplied. Against the said order the appellants preferred an appeal under statutory right before the State Government. The grievance of the appellants was that the reasons for the orders passed by the State Government were also not communicated to them. The appellants thereafter moved the High Court of Allahabad in a writ, but that too was rejected by a Division Bench of the said Court. The matter came before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the order passed by the District Magistrate canceling the licence was quasi-judicial order and it could be made only on consideration of the charges and the explanation given by the appellants. That means the District Magistrate had to give some reason why he held the charges approved and the explanation unacceptable. While disposing of the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed, "There is nothing on the record which shows that the representation made by the appellants was even considered. The fact that Clause 7 of the Suger Dealers' Licensing Order to which the High Court has referred does not require the State Government to pass a reasoned order is wholly irrelevant. The fact that Clause 7 of the Suger Dealers' Licensing Order to which the High Court has referred does not require the State Government to pass a reasoned order is wholly irrelevant. The nature of the proceeding requires that the State Government must give adequate reasons which disclose that an attempt was made to reach a conclusion according to law and justice." In my considered view, this case does not help the petitioner because in the instant case there are materials on the record, which show that the Commission after giving him reasonable opportunity to inspect his answer books, if so desired, took the impugned decision. It may be relevant to point out here that clarification with regard to certain material facts were also made in the second show cause, but the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity which was provided to him by the Commission for examination of his answer books. Although he had himself complained earlier that he had not been provided with an opportunity to look into the answer books. In that view of the matter, the principle decided in the case of M/s Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (supra) does oat apply to the facts of the case of the petitioner. 24. The learned Counsel also relied upon a decision in the case of Rakesh Kumar Thakur v. The Union Public Service Commission & anr. reported in 1984 B.B.C.J. page 517. In the aforesaid case the petitioner who appeared at the examination for appointment to the Indian Forest Service conducted by the Union Public Service Commission had been held to have abetted another student in using unfair means by the impugned order and accordingly he had been debarred from appearing at the examination to be conducted by the Union Public Service Commission for a period of ten years and his candidature in the said examination was also cancelled. In the said case a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Respondents stating that the answer scripts were secret and privileged documents, and, therefore, the petitioner could not be allowed to inspect the same, nor he get copies thereof. In the said case a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Respondents stating that the answer scripts were secret and privileged documents, and, therefore, the petitioner could not be allowed to inspect the same, nor he get copies thereof. Their Lordships while deciding the said case held that "it cannot be denied that if the impugned order stands, the petitioner is likely to suffer serious prejudice involving civil consequences, In such a situation the principles of natural justice must be followed before condemning an examinee." It was further held that, "in cases of this nature, surely the principle of Evidence Act may not be applicable but the authorities will remember that for indicting an individual for such charges and to hold guilty there must be sufficient evidence, for any prudent man to act upon it, and the findings should not be based on nonest materials." In the instant case, there are materials on the record to show, as I have already indicated above, that after the direction given by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 285 of 1984, the principles of natural justice was followed and the petitioner was given fair opportunity to file show cause and to examine his answer books, if so desired. In that view of the matter; this case (1984 B.B.C.J. 517) also does not help the petitioner. 25. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that a body bound to act judicially is one which is hound to hear evidence from both sides and to come to a judicial decision approximately in the way, the court must do. In the instant case the Commission which was required to act judicially committed serious error of law in not coming to a judicial decision by giving reasons for the conclusion it has arrived and by not giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. On the contrary the impugned order was based on an enquiry behind the back of the petitioner, which alone will vitiate the order. Any order founded on an enquiry behind the back of the person concerned is void. In support of this principle the learned counsel relied upon a decision in the case of Union of India v. T.R. Varma reported in A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 882. Any order founded on an enquiry behind the back of the person concerned is void. In support of this principle the learned counsel relied upon a decision in the case of Union of India v. T.R. Varma reported in A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 882. There is no dispute regarding this principle, The question is as to whether the impugned order is based on an enquiry without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. 26. It is well settled that the principle of natural justice requires that a quasi-judicial body should not make any decision adverse to a party without giving him an effective opportunity of meeting relevant allegations against him. In other words, the principle requires that no order should be passed against any person unless he has been given an opportunity to make his representation against the comments, if any. The said principle need not necessarily be by giving personal hearing. It can even be by written representation in the instant case, the petitioner has been given effective opportunity to meet the allegation, which he did by filing his written representation. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this contention as well that he has not been given proper opportunity before taking final decision in this regard. 27. In view of my above finding that adequate opportunities were given to the petitioner to file show cause and even to examine his answer books but the petitioner did not avail the opportunity, therefore, the aforesaid case also does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 28. It is well settled that a punishment cannot be founded on allegations, in respect of which no notice or show cause has been issued, but in the instant case. I find that notice and opportunity have already been, afforded to the petitioner, therefore, I do not find any substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the charge is absolutely different from the allegations on which the petitioner has been punished. The learned counsel also relied upon a decision in the case of Surath Chandra Chakravarty v. State of West Bengal, reported in A.I.R. 1971 S.C. page 752, but on the facts and circumstances of this case that decision is also not applicable in the present case. 29. The learned counsel also relied upon a decision in the case of Surath Chandra Chakravarty v. State of West Bengal, reported in A.I.R. 1971 S.C. page 752, but on the facts and circumstances of this case that decision is also not applicable in the present case. 29. Lastly it was contended that the expression 'unfair means' according to Conduct of Examination Ordinance, 1980, in relation to any examination shall mean, "taking or attempting to take help from any material written or printed or from any person in any form whatsoever". According to the learned counsel, in the education laws it does not include "conspiracy to temper with the examination answer books" because unfair means is committed during the examination and "conspiracy to temper with the answer books" can be committed only after the examination is over. Therefore, the reason for the punishment is non-est and based on conjectures and it must be quashed. I do not find any substance in this argument. It is relevant to state here that the case of the petitioner is on a different footing and if a candidate is caught in the examination hall while using unfair means, then he is asked to show why he should not be punished and the commission after perusing the show cause etc. decides the matter on the merit of each case. Such decision is communicated to the Union Public Service Commission and all such bodies. Rule 15 A of Bihar Civil Service (Examination Branch) and Bihar Junior Civil Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1951 lays down that if any candidate is found guilty of resorting to any irregular or improper means for obtaining admission to the examination or impersonating another candidate or submitting fabricated document or documents, which have been tempered with or making false statement or suppressing material information communicating with any person for the purpose of getting help or for aiding any other candidate or using any other unfair means in the examination hall, be may be expelled from the examination hall by the Commission or by any person authorised by them in this behalf. In such cases, the Commission may also invalidate his answer books or deduct such marks as they consider fit and he may debar such candidate either permanently or for a specified period. In such cases, the Commission may also invalidate his answer books or deduct such marks as they consider fit and he may debar such candidate either permanently or for a specified period. From perusal of this Rule, it is clear that unfair means can also be adopted by submitting fabricated answer books even from outside the examination hall. 30. The learned standing Counsel No. II appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that under Rule 20 of the Rules, the Commission reserves right to recommend the successful candidate for any of the service for which he is considered suitable, But if at the stage of final scrutiny it is convincingly found by the manner of writing or other relevant facts that the candidate has used unfair means, then the answer book of such candidate is cancelled. It was further contended that when complaints were received the matter was enquired into by the then Secretary, a senior I.A.S. Officer, who concluded that unfair means has been resorted to. Thereafter the same was examined by two senior Members of the Commission and they agreed with the finding of the then Secretary. 31. The learned Standing Counsel stated that as per direction of the Court, the Commission issued show cause notice to the petitioner and after considering the show cause carefully took the final decision. It was contended on behalf of the Respondents that it is wrong to say that the impugned order suffers from legal infirmities as it is not a speaking order. He has drawn my attention to the second show cause notice (Annexure-11) where it wall specifically mentioned in Paragraph 'KHA' that the fact that there was no signature of the invigilator on the main and additional answer books of the petitioner in General Hindi, Additional answer books of Urdu literature and the additional answer books of Indian History, signify that the petitioner had got the answer books added later in colusion with some person. The petitioner in reply to this allegation has not stated any thing clearly except that he has already submitted a detailed reply to the first show cause notice and issuance of the second show cause notice creates misapprehension in his mind that some attempt is being made to fish him out. The petitioner in reply to this allegation has not stated any thing clearly except that he has already submitted a detailed reply to the first show cause notice and issuance of the second show cause notice creates misapprehension in his mind that some attempt is being made to fish him out. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that reading together the second show cause notice and the impugned order, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed for the reasons that the petitioner has added additional answer books later in collusion with some person. 32. According to him, it is not a case where it can be said that the finding of the Commission is not supported by any evidence nor it can be said that no reasonable person could have reached such a finding. Hence, the conclusion reached by the Commission should prevail and this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot interfere with the same. 33. The learned Standing Counsel in support of his contention relied upon a decision in the case of Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P., Allahabad v. Bagleshwar Prasad & anr. reported in A.I.R. 1966 SC page 875, where it was held that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order passed against the student cancelling his examination result by which he was declared to have passed the examination. In the aforesaid case a writ petition was filed by Respondent Bagleshwar Prasad and others against the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad and its secretary challenging the validity of the order passed by the appellant cancelling the respondent's result. The High Court set aside the order on the ground that it was not supported by any evidence. The matter came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case observed as follows: "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. 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. 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........." 34. In view of the aforesaid judgment, in my view, this Court should not interfere with the order passed by the Commission. The Commission bas reached to the conclusion in the light of the materials available on the record and after giving full opportunities to the petitioner. 35. Before parting with the judgment, I may point out here that at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner the answer books of the petitioner in question were called for from the Commission Office by this Court. At the time of hearing of this application, the answer books were received in a sealed cover and the Court at the time of argument opened the sealed cover in presence of the counsels for both the parties and perused the answer books of General Hindi paper and also showed the papers to Mr. Mukhopadhaya, junior counsel appearing in the case alongwith Mr. Basudeva Prasad. 36. Mukhopadhaya, junior counsel appearing in the case alongwith Mr. Basudeva Prasad. 36. On perusal of the answer papers, aforesaid, I found that in the main Hindi answer book in the beginning first few pages, there were number of cuttings and from the answer of one of the questions, which was completely cut in the beginning, it appears to fir that the candidate had even no basic idea of the subject, but immediately as if some light flashed in his mind and in the additional paper he wrote the answers in such a way and in such language which can not be expected from the ordinary or even first class students in a better and neat hand writing. This fact also leads me to the conclusion that the petitioner had adopted some unfair means either in the examination hall or outside with the aid of some outside agency. 37. Having, examined the facts very closely and having considered the matter in all its ramification, I unhesitatingly hold that there is no merit in this application. 38. In the result the writ application fails and is dismissed but having regard to the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. L.M. Sharma, J. – I agree.