JUDGMENT O.M. Prakash, J. - Km. Shaifali Rastogi having Roll No. 339719 appeared in High School Examination being a regular student of S.R.M. Inter College, Bisalpur District Pilibhit in 1987. 2. A charge sheet was served upon her that while attempting question No. 2-A of English I, common mistakes were found in her note-book and in the notebook of another candidate having Roll No. 339718, in so far as the question No. 2-A is concerned. The petitioner was called upon to show cause. She did not file the explanation, but that was found insufficient and, therefore, her result was cancelled vide order dated 26-2-1988, Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner prays for quashing of the aforesaid order and for issuing a mandamus that the respondent No. 1 be directed to issue a fresh mark-sheet to the petitioner of High School Examination, 1987. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed before us the question paper, the answer book, the charge-sheet and other materials. The short question for consideration is whether the petitioner can be legally charged for having exercised unfair means in having attempting question No. 2-A of English I paper. In question 2-A, a candidate is required to match the proper meaning of the words stated in column `A' therein from column `B'. In column `A' the words : rotate and `trunnel' are there. The petitioner and another candidate having Roll No. 339718 have inter-changed the meaning of these two words. The charge-sheet says that since the common mistake occurred in the answer of question No. 2-A in the answer-book of both the petitioner and the other candidate, therefore, the petitioner was charged for having exercised unfair means. We do not agree with the inference of the conclusion drawn by the Examiner from the common mistake being committed by the petitioner and the other candidate. In objective test, where the questions and answers both have been given, this type of mistake is quite probable and cannot be ruled out. Two or more candidates may remain under a common belief and, therefore, this type of mistake may be committed. No inference from such mistake can be drawn that the common mistakes are the result of copying. It may be a result of incorrect understanding and not a result of copying. Two or more candidates may remain under a common belief and, therefore, this type of mistake may be committed. No inference from such mistake can be drawn that the common mistakes are the result of copying. It may be a result of incorrect understanding and not a result of copying. The inference of copying on the facts and circumstances is neither reasonable nor justifiable and we, therefore, quash the order Annexure-5 to the writ petition and direct the respondent No. 1 to issue a proper mark sheet to the petitioner in place of the provisional mark-sheet, already awarded within a month from the date a copy of our order is produced before him. 5. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of. Nor order as to costs. 6. Let a copy of this order be issued to learned counsel for the parties on payment of necessary charges within two days.