JUDGMENT K.K. Birla, J. - This is a writ petition preferred by Gajram Singh and four others against Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad (hereinafter referred as the Board', Additional Secretary of the Board, the Principal Kunewar Harish Chandra Smarak Inter College Kasampur, Garhi, District Bijnor (hereinafter referred as the College) and the Centre Superintendent, Rajkiya Adarsh Inter College, Afzalgarh, Bijnor for issuing a writ of certiorari and a writ of mandamus or any other suitable order. 2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition may be given briefly- All the petitioners were regular students of the College. They had appeared in the High School Examination of 1985 (hereinafter referred as the Examination) conducted by the Board by its branch at Bareilly. The petitioners Gajram Singh, Ifran Ahmad, Jasbir Singh, Gambhir Singh and Mohd. Ibrahim were allotted roll numbers 310066, 310071, 310011, 310001 and 310088 respectively. The result, has been withheld by the Board on the ground that they had used unfair means and mass copying while appearing in the examination. They were asked to be present in Khalsa Intermediate College, Neorpur, Bijnor on 30-8-85 at 11.00 a. m. to reply the charge of using unfair means. The petitioners went there. They were given a printed form but only 5 minutes time was given to them. They denied the charge of mass copying and use of unfair means. According to the petitioners, they were denied any reasonable opportunity of replying to the charges. The petitioners were issued provisional marksheet (copies Annexure I to V). By letters dated 9-2-1987 (Annexure VI to X) the principal of the College informed them that their results have been cancelled by the Board by order dated 8-1-1987. 3. The petitioners thereafter filed this writ petition for granting a writ of certiorari for quashing the Board's order dated 8-1-1982 and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to declare their results of the High School Examination of 1986. In support of the averments of this writ petition, Gajram petitioner No. 1 had filed an affidavit. 4. Respondent No. 1 has filed counter affidavit dated 20-6-1987. According to him, screening of the answer books of the petitioners were done on the report of flying squad about the commission of mass copying, the petitioners were found to have committed copying and using unfair means and as such the result was withheld. 4. Respondent No. 1 has filed counter affidavit dated 20-6-1987. According to him, screening of the answer books of the petitioners were done on the report of flying squad about the commission of mass copying, the petitioners were found to have committed copying and using unfair means and as such the result was withheld. The case of the contesting respondent is mainly contained in para 11 of the affidavit which is as below : "That the contents of para No. 18 of the writ petition are not admitted and denied. On screening of the answer book of the petitioners of subject of English 1st paper, it was found that the petitioners (Roll Nos. 310088, 310071 and 310001) have incorrectly attempted at one place quoted their answer regarding question No. 2 (A) and cut down and they attempted another place, which was correct near about and the petitioner (Roll No. 310066) in his answer book of English 1st paper attempted to question No. 2 (c) two times at one place was found incorrect an a cut down and it another place was found correct. Question No. 1-D and 2-D of English 1st paper in the answer book of the petitioner (Roll No. 310111) was found tallying with answers of the candidates (Roll Nos. 310103, 310104, 310105, 310106 and 310107) as the answer regarding these questions at one place was found to have been done either on the basis of oral instruction. As a result of mass copying and therefore, the result of the petitioners were withheld under rule 2(kha) of chapter 6(kha) of the Collender, Rules of U.P. High School and intermediate Board. In the result the Nistranan Samiti cancelled the result of the petitioners in accordance with rules." 5. According to the petitioners they had not resorted to the use of unfair means or mass copying and that their result has been cancelled illegally merely on the basis of unfounded suspicion and reasonable opportunity of putting their case was denied to them. 6. On the other hand according to the contesting respondents, the petitioners were served with the charges and proper opportunity was given to them, that it was satisfactorily found that they had used unfair means including mass copying and as such their result was rightly cancelled. 7. 6. On the other hand according to the contesting respondents, the petitioners were served with the charges and proper opportunity was given to them, that it was satisfactorily found that they had used unfair means including mass copying and as such their result was rightly cancelled. 7. In order to find whether the charge of using unfair means and copying is properly substantiated we had directed the production of the answer books of the petitioners and answer books bearing roll nos. 310103, 310104, 310105, 310106 and 310107, the charges against these petitioners and the relevant question paper. We have perused this material with the help of the learned counsel for the parties. Individual cases in the light of this material are being considered. 8. The charge against the petitioner No. 1 is that while answering English first paper, he attempted question No. 2(c) twice and his second attempt was more correct and different from the first attempt. In this question, sentences were to be framed using any two of the 4 phrases given in the question. In the first attempt as well the meanings of the two phrases `keep on' and `give up' are correctly given. The sentence using the phrase `keep on' in the first attempt is also correct except grammatical mistake. In the second attempt another sentence is framed in using the phrase `give up'. There is improvement in the second attempt. The frame of the sentence in the first attempt is grammatically wrong. When second attempt is made after some thinking, there is scope for improvement. We have considered both the attempts and by some improvement in the second attempt it cannot be said or the charge cannot be found to be substantiated that this improvement is on account of use of unfair means. It may be pointed out that there is no report of the invigilator or Centre Superintendent for use of the unfair means or copying. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there was no sufficient material for finding that this petitioner has used any unfair means. 9. The charge against Yashbir Singh is that in answer to question No. ID (iv) and 2-D (iv) he has given a wrong answer which tallies to the answer contained in the answer book bearing roll no. 310103 to 310107 and, therefore, this incorrect word has been written by outside help. 9. The charge against Yashbir Singh is that in answer to question No. ID (iv) and 2-D (iv) he has given a wrong answer which tallies to the answer contained in the answer book bearing roll no. 310103 to 310107 and, therefore, this incorrect word has been written by outside help. The charge against Shakil Ahmad is also similar with regard to the answers given to 1-D (iv) and 2-D (iv). 10. Question No. 1-D (iv) is as below :- Name the persons who said something like the following. (iv) "May Allah save us ; Are you a ghost ? Look, that woman is awake too." 11. It has been contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the relevant word is Nazhat. We find that Yashbir has written the word as Nujeet. On the other hand in the answer books bearing roll Nos. 310103 and 310104 their word is mentioned as Nuzat, the answer book bearing roll No. 310105 as Nujeet, answer book bearing roll No. 310106 as N-sheet and in the answer book bearing roll No. 310107 as Nuzeet. Therefore, on comparison we find that spelling of the word written by these candidates differ and it cannot be said that this petitioner has written this word by using unfair means, or mass copying. It may be pointed that the word written by them is incorrect if the petitioner would have coped the word or used unfair means this mistake could have not been there. Therefore, the charge with regard to the answer to question ID (iv) is not at all substantiated. 12. As regards the answer to question No. 2-D (iv) the question is as follows : D. Rewrite each of the following sentences by replacing the intelicised group of words by the word. (iv) What do you get in return for all your hard work ? 13. In the answer books bearing roll Nos. 310103 to 310107, the answer given is `Respect'. Yashbir Singh, petitioner No. 3 has also written the word `Respect'. The question is not an easy one. The similarity in the answer will not be sufficient to raise the inference that it is a result of mass copying. In fact the word used does not appear to be the substitute for the intelicised words but appear to be the answer to this question. The question is not an easy one. The similarity in the answer will not be sufficient to raise the inference that it is a result of mass copying. In fact the word used does not appear to be the substitute for the intelicised words but appear to be the answer to this question. At the bar the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the result of candidate bearing roll No. 310107 has already been declared and has passed. This was not disputed from the other side. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no proper grounds for withholding the result of Yashbir Singh petitioner No. 3 has been named out. 14. The cases of Sri Ifran Ahmad petitioner No. 2 bearing roll No. 310071 Gambhir Singh petitioner No. 4 bearing roll No. 310001 and Mohd. Ibrahim petitioner No. 5 bearing roll No. 310088 are similar. The charge against them is that they had attempted question No. 2-A twice and their second attempt is different and more correct. Question No. 2A is as follows :- Match the words under `A' with what is said about them under `B' ; 'A' 'B' Rescue Grumble Take up responsibility to leave (a person) sad at the death Undertake of a dear one Summon make repeated request on demand Bereave Complain Corpse Some people bury it, some burn it. Insist Not willing Reluctant Save to call somebody to the Court. 15. The answers of petitioners No. 2, 4 and 5 are as follows : Roll No. First attempt Second attempt 310061 petitioner No. 2 Rescue Make repeated request on demand Rescue Save Grumble Some people buy it, some burn it Grumble Complain Undertake Save Undertake take up responsibility Summon to leave (a person) sad at the death of a dear one Summon to call somebody to the court. Bereave not willing Bereave to have a person sad at the death of a dear one Corpse to call some body to the court Corpse not willing Insist take up responsibility Insist make repeated request on demand Reluctant Complain Reluctant 310001 Petitioner No.4 Rescue some people buy it, some burn Rescue Save Grumble make demand repeated request on demand Grumble Complain Undertake take up responsibility Undertake take up responsibility Summon Complain Summon Some people buy it, some burn it Bereave to leave (a person) and at the death of a dear one Bereave to leave (a person sad at the death of a dear one Corpse to call some body to the court Corpse to call some body to court Insist save Insist make repeated request on demand Reluctant not willing Reluctant not willing 310088 Petitioner NO. 5 Rescue Save Rescue Save Grumble Complain Grumble Complain Undertake to take up responsibility Undertake to take up responsibility Bereave to call somebody to the court Summon to call some body to the court Corpse - Bereave to leave (a person) sad at the death of a dear one Insist - Corpse Some people buy it, some burn it Reluctant - Insist Relictent make repeated request not willing 16. As regards Gambhir Singh petitioner No. 4, in the first attempt the answers to the words undertake, bereave and reluctant are correct' In the second attempt against the word resue he gave a wrong answer `complain' then struck it off and wrote the word `save'. This shows that this is not the result of copying but reconsideration. The same is correct about the word `grumble'. The answers to the word `summon' and corpse' are still wrong. Therefore it does not appear to be the case of using unfair means. It may also be pointed that on the last page of answer book he had made third attempt which he struck of. Therefore it appears that in the improvement of the second attempt of answer it cannot be said that he used unfair means or copying at the time of making the second attempt. Therefore no satisfactory grounds exist for withholding or cancelling his result. 17. As regards Mohd. Ibrahim petitioner No. 5 (Roll No. 310088) in his first attempt the answer to first three words were correct, that to one word was incorrect and he did not attempt the other parts. Therefore no satisfactory grounds exist for withholding or cancelling his result. 17. As regards Mohd. Ibrahim petitioner No. 5 (Roll No. 310088) in his first attempt the answer to first three words were correct, that to one word was incorrect and he did not attempt the other parts. In the second attempt all the answers were correct. In this final attempt there was one mistake only and three parts were correct. Therefore it cannot be ruled but that on giving further thinking, he found the correct answer to other parts and also detected his mistake about one part. 18. As regards Irfan Ahmad petitioner No. 2, bearing roll No. 310077, in his first attempt answer to six words are correct. Answer to one word is wrong and answer to the last word `reluctant' has not been attempted. The learned Standing Counsel has contended that there is a marked improvement in the second attempt which shows that unfair means had been used by him. On the other hand it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this improvement could be on account of rethinking. No doubt there is marked improvement in the second attempt this may raise a reasonable suspicion that the answer may be on account of something more than the mere rethinking on the part of this petitioner. However, there is nothing else on record to show regarding the use of unfair means. The petitioner is a young man. The cancellation of the result will mar his future prospects and carrier. There should be something more than mere suspicion in such cases. Even if the marks allotted to this question are ignored, it will not effect the result of the petitioner. In our opinion the petitioner is entitled to the benefit and we do not find sufficient material and ground to upheld the cancellation of his result. 19. In view of the above discussions the Board's order dated 8-1-1987 deserves to be quashed and Board should be directed to declare the result of these petitioners. 20. In the result the writ petition is allowed. 19. In view of the above discussions the Board's order dated 8-1-1987 deserves to be quashed and Board should be directed to declare the result of these petitioners. 20. In the result the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 8-1-1987 of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad, branch at Bareilly cancelling the results of the petitioners is quashed and it is further directed that the Board will declare the result of these petitioners of High School Examination of 1986 within one month from the date of this order. There is no order as to costs. 21. In case the time for failing the forms for the Intermediate Examination of the Board has expired, the petitioners shall be permitted by the respondent Board to appear at the Intermediate Examination, 1988, provided they fill in the forms for appearing at the same examination and pay the requisite fee within 15 days. The respondent Board shall accept the application forms of the petitioners.