JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of the respondent No. 1 the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Bareilly. through its Regional Secretary, dated 14-12-1987, whereby the result of the petitioner has been cancelled. 2. The petitioner had appeared as a regular student in the High School Examination of 1987. His Roll Number was 0283812. His Centre of the Examination was Ambika Prasad Intermediate College, Moradabad. The charge levelled against the petitioner is to the effect that he answered Question No. 2-A of English 1st paper which resembled the answers given by the students bearing Roll Nos. 283811 , 283814, 283815 and 283817. The Question No. 2. A of English 1st Paper of the year 1987 runs as below : 2.A. Match words under 'A' with their meanings under 'B'. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had not used any unfair means in answering the above- mentioned question 2.A. of English 1st paper. According to him the inference drawn by the opposite parties regarding the petitioner's' using unfair means is based on surmises. conjectures and suspicion. Therefore, the cancellation of the result of the petitioner should be quashed. A. B. rotate to hold back further to leave in helpless condition tickle feeling of uncertainty and fear about future pretend to touch or stroke lightly forsake in addition vow to make believe restrain turn or spin on an axis anxiety solemn promise 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties has produced the answer book of the petitioner along with the answer books of the students bearing Roll Nos. 283811, 283815 and 283817. 5. 1 have perused the answer books of all the students regarding question No. 2-A. and I find that all the students have answered the question in similar way. The perusal of the answer books gives me an idea that the students have used unfair means in answering Question No. 2-A. The answers given by all the students are as follows : (For Answers see below) 6. The perusal of the answer books gives me an idea that the students have used unfair means in answering Question No. 2-A. The answers given by all the students are as follows : (For Answers see below) 6. Looking to the proximity of Roll Numbers and all the students having appeared at the same Centre and the answers given by them to the question No. 2-A. I am unable to hold that the opposite parties have acted unreasonably or unjustifiably in cancelling the result of the petitioner and holding the petitioner guilty of using unfair means. 7. No doubt, mere common mistakes may not lead to definite conclusion that the students have used unfair means but looking to the Roll Numbers of the students involved and their having appeared at one Centre and their answers are so strikingly similar that one can reasonably infer that they have used unfair means in answering the aforesaid question. AIR 1973 All I (FB); Head Note (B) indicates as below : "In dealing with the validity of the orders passed by the authorities the High Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the authority concerned. Its jurisdiction is limited and it is true, that if the order in question is not supported by any evidence at all, the High Court may quash it; but the conclusion that the order in question is not supported by any evidence must be reached after considering the question as to whether probabilities and circumstantial evidence do not justify that conclusion." In 1979 All LJ 676: ( AIR 1979 All 209 ), Ghazanfar Rashid v. Secy. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad a Full Bench of this Court has indicated in para 16 of the judgment as below: "... if the Examinations Committee relying on the probabilities circumstantial evidence and the intrinsic evidence available in the answer book of the examinee comes to the conclusion that unfair means was used, it is outside the jurisdiction of the High Court to reappraise and re-assess the evidentiary value of those circumstances to take a different view." The examinations Committee and the Screening Committee are constituted of experts, they are the sole judges to determine the question of use of unfair means on the basis of materials present on record. Their decision cannot be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution unless the decision is mala fide, arbitrary or capricious. Any decision of an authority, quasi-judicial or administrative, is vitiated on the grounds of mala fides........." 8. In the present case, after looking into the explanation of the students and the answer book of the petitioner along with the answer books of the suspected students, I am not prepared to hold that the authorities have acted mala fide, arbitrarily or capriciously. In the present case, there is enough circumstantial evidence to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of using unfair means. A. B. Rotate To touch or stroke lightly Further Turn or spin on an axis Tickle In addition Pretend to leave in helpless condition Forsake To hold back Vow Solemn promise Restrain to make believe Anxiety Feeling of uncertainty and fear about future. 9. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. OM PRAKASH, J. :- 10. I have had the benefit of going through the order of my learned brother and I quite agree with the view taken by my brother that on the facts and circumstances of the case, involving enough circumstantial evidence to reach the conclusion, that the petitioner is guilty of having used unfair means and that the view taken by the Unfair Means Committee in the matter is not without evidence, no jurisdiction is vested in this Court to reappraise the matter. In Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. Allahabad v. Rageshwar Prasad, ( AIR 1966 SC 875 ), Their Lordship observed in paragraph 12 on p. 878 : "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. 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." Then, the Supreme Court summarised the legal position in the same paragraph, as has already been reproduced by my learned brother from Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala, (AIR 19733 SC 1). 11. So the jurisdiction of this Court is limited one and what is to be seen by this Court in such matters is whether the decision reached at by a Domestic Tribunal/Unfair Means Committee is supported by evidence oral or documentary, direct or circumstantial. 12. For the reasons, I agree that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.