JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - This appears to be an extremely unfortunate case. Admittedly the petitioner is a handicapped student, having lost his right hand when he was only six years old. The left hand got fractured on 18-3-1987 in an accident on the eve of the examination. The petitioner had, however, already prior to 18-3-87 submitted an application to the District Inspector of Schools in accordance with Rules prescribed by the Board in regard to handicapped students. Under the Rules such students are allowed the facility of some one who may take down the dictation ('the helper', in short) on certain terms and conditions laid down in the Rules. After the accident on 18-3-87 the petitioner made another application to the District Inspector of Schools along with medical certificate granted by the Chief Medical Officer of the district certifying the disability from which the petitioner suffered. A copy of the mark- sheet of the helper - one Anand Kumar, a student of class IX - whose services the petitioner desired to take in answering the papers at the High School examination of 1987 was also filed. 2. A copy of the Rules has been annexed to the petition which, inter alia, lay down that the District Inspector of Schools should before granting the permission satisfy himself that the helper is a student of a class lower than the class at which the applicant proposes to appear. The District Inspector of Schools is further required to satisfy himself that the helper secured aggregate of less than 45% marks in his last examination. The District Inspector of Schools appears to have verified these facts and on being satisfied that the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications for being permitted to take the services of a helper granted the permission to the petitioner. On the strength of that permission the petitioner appeared at the 1987 examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. U.P. and has passed the same. The examination of the petitioner has, however, been cancelled by the respondent-Board solely on the ground that though Anand Kumar's aggregate was less than 45% in the six monthly examination of IX class, in Hindi he had secured 49% marks which was more than 45% and consequently in the opinion of the Board the condition laid down in clause (E) by the Board had been violated. Clause (E) of the Rules framed by the Board provides that in cases where mark-sheets are not available the helper should apart from having' secured less than 45% in the aggregate also not have secured more than 45% in those papers in which the handicapped was allowed the assistance of a helper. 3. The learned Standing Counsel was granted two weeks' time on 3-11-1987 to file counter-affidavit. In view of the urgency of the matter the Bench also directed that the petition shall be disposed of finally on the next date, i.e. 18-11-1987. No counter-affidavit has, however, been filed so far. 4. In the circumstances and in view of the fact that the career of the petitioner is likely to be seriously prejudiced by the adjournment of the case we are proceedings' to dispose of the writ petition after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel. 5. Having given the matter our anxious consideration, we are clearly of the view that the decision taken by the respondent Board cancelling the petitioner's examination was clearly unjust and unwarranted. It is true that + the condition laid down in clause (E) requires' that the helper/writer should also not have secured more than 45% in any individual subject in which the handicapped is seeking the assistance of a helper. But these matters should have been investigated before the commencement of the Examination and before the grant of the permission to the petitioner. In this case the District Inspect- of Schools had granted the requisite permission to the petitioner after satisfying himself that the helper whose name the petitioner had indicated complied with the necessary conditions and also satisfied himself that the petitioner suffered from serious Physical disabilities. We are firmly of the view, cases, of fraudulent misrepresentation apart, where, as here the Board permits a candidate to appear at the examination after such verification it would be grossly unfair and unjust to cancel his examination After the examination is over on the ground stated in the present case. These matters we think, ought to be investigated before hand, particularly when there is no doubt or dispute that the applicant is physically handicapped. Be that as it may, such a ground could not by itself and without more furnish a valid ground for cancelling the examination altogether. 6. These matters we think, ought to be investigated before hand, particularly when there is no doubt or dispute that the applicant is physically handicapped. Be that as it may, such a ground could not by itself and without more furnish a valid ground for cancelling the examination altogether. 6. We accordingly allow the petition and quash the impugned order cancelling the petitioner's High School Examination of 1987. The petitioner shall now be issued a final mark-sheet within two weeks of the date on which a certified copy of this order is submitted before the Secretary of the respondent Board. 7. A copy of this order be made available to the learn counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within three days.