G. B. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the notification of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, dt. 16-7-1987 by which notification the results of the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 1987 of the petitioner have been cancelled under Regns. 41 (b) and 42 (a) of Chapter-X of the Regulations of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as the 'board's Regulation') has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. ( 2 ) PETITIONER's case briefly stated is that she had appeared in the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 1987, as a correspondence course candidate from Government Girls' High School, Tihidi, Centre in the district of Balasore. The Symbol of the Centre was "16-M" and her roll number was "x06". By notification dt. 23rd. June, 1987 (Annexure-1), the petitioner's results were withheld not because of any alleged malpractice but because of other reasons, thereafter the impugned notification dt. 16-7-1987 emanated which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition and it transpires from the said notification that the petitioner's results have been cancelled under Regn. 41 (b) Chap. X of the Board's Regulations, meaning thereby the Examination Committee has been satisfied that the examination has not been conducted as per the rules. In other words, the Examination Committee having come to the conclusion that there has been a mass malpractice decided to cancel the results. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that since the results of some of the candidates have been declared in the Centre in question and in respect of some others, the same has been cancelled, it cannot be a case of mass malpractice and, therefore, the appropriate authority was not justified in taking action under Regn. 41 (b ). It must he held to be a case of individual malpractice and the power to take action for such malpractice is conferred under Regn. 42 (a) whereunder rules of natural justice must be followed. Since the same has not been followed admittedly the impugned cancellation cannot be sustained. 41 (b ). It must he held to be a case of individual malpractice and the power to take action for such malpractice is conferred under Regn. 42 (a) whereunder rules of natural justice must be followed. Since the same has not been followed admittedly the impugned cancellation cannot be sustained. ( 3 ) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board (opposite party No. 1), the stand taken is that on the basis of reports received from different sources, the Examination Committee was of the opinion that there were prima facie materials to suspect about involvement of the petitioner in mass malpractice and, therefore, originally the results had been withheld by notification dt. 23rd of June, 1987. On further investigation, i. e. , after scrutiny of the petitioner's answer papers by a team of expert teachers it was found that there had been a wide-scale malpractice in the Centre in question and, therefore, the Committee decided to cancel the results as per Annexure 2. It has been further asserted that as there was a case of adoption of mass malpractice, the question of adopting the procedure as required for individual malpractice did not arise. ( 4 ) IN course of hearing of the writ petition, it is admitted by Mr. Das appearing for the Board that the results of the entire Centre from where petitioner did appear had not been cancelled. On the other hand, results of some had been declared and some others had been cancelled. According to Mr. Rao, the only basis for taking the aforesaid step was the report of the Experts Committee which examined the answer papers of students and submitted the report indicating therein how many of the students had adopted unfair means and how many of them had not and on hat basis the ultimate results were either cancelled or declared. In our opinion, the aforesaid procedure adopted by the Board is wholly illegal. If on the opinion of the Experts Committee reviewing the answer papers of candidates of a particular Centre, the Examination Committee comes to the conclusion that there has been a wide-scale malpractice, then the Committee would be at liberty to cancel the results of that Centre without being required to follow the principles of natural justice. If on the opinion of the Experts Committee reviewing the answer papers of candidates of a particular Centre, the Examination Committee comes to the conclusion that there has been a wide-scale malpractice, then the Committee would be at liberty to cancel the results of that Centre without being required to follow the principles of natural justice. But there must be sufficient materials before the Committee to enable it to come to the conclusion that in fact there has been a wide-scale malpractice in the Centre in question. On the other hand, if the Committee comes to the conclusion that some in the Centre had adopted unfair means and some others had not so adopted, then it would not be a case of mass malpractice nor would it be said to be a case where the Committee can exercise its jurisdiction under Regn. 41 (b), since it cannot be said that the examination has not been conducted as per the rules. In such a case, those candidates who according to the Committee are suspected to have adopted malpractice must be heard before any final decision is taken. They must know on what basis, the Committee has formed the aforesaid conclusion and they will have a right of replying to the charge in question. In such a case, the report of the Experts Committee which had scrutinised the answer papers of the candidates may give rise to a suspicion that some candidates have adopted unfair means but such suspicion cannot form the basis of final action of cancelling the results. In the present case, unfortunately no details have been pleaded or brought to our notice by the Board to indicate as to what was the opinion of the Experts Committee in relation to the petitioner. Mr. Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the Board, however, submits that the Committee took action under Regn. 41 (b) of the Board's Regulations treating it to be a case of mass malpractice. Even he has not placed before us the number of candidates whose results were declared from the Centre and the number of candidates whose results have been cancelled in the Centre though he concedes that results of some have been declared and some others have been withheld. Even he has not placed before us the number of candidates whose results were declared from the Centre and the number of candidates whose results have been cancelled in the Centre though he concedes that results of some have been declared and some others have been withheld. In the circumstances, we have no other alternative than to hold that this cannot be a case of mass malpractice and, therefore, the Examination Committee had no jurisdiction to cancel the results in exercise of powers under Regn. 41 (b) of the Board's Regulations. If at all, the Committee can exercise its jurisdiction under Regn. 42 (a) by bringing to the notice of the concerned candidate the incriminating materials which form the basis of the suspicion of the Committee and giving him an opportunity of explaining the same. Since that has not been done, the impugned order of cancellation as per Annexure-2 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we would quash Annexure-2 in so far as it relates to the petitioner and direct the Board (opposite party No. 1) to proceed in accordance with law. ( 5 ) THIS writ application is accordingly allowed, but on the circumstances, without any order as to costs. ( 6 ) RATH, J : - I agree. Petition allowed.