ORDER Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - The issue in the present writ petition arises out of the malice which is inevitable of an out of date memory oriented examination system one annual examination at the end of the academic session is the test of scholastic efficiency. Consistently diligent students strike at consistent results, bad luck granted. Some make up the academic course during the last lap of the academic session, such student speculate on the forthcoming results. Then there is a class which would rather not spend energy on diligence nor tax the memory and rely on transcribing, circumstances permitting, the answers should the questions speculated have been set. 2. For the last class, most examining bodies in the country gear up a machinery comprising of personnel and regulations to standardise invigilation. A "hawk eye" on students who cheat, which in itself takes novel forms. All do not get caught. The suspicion falls on those who do not cheat also. Then there are presumptions on those who may have cheated. this is one such case. 3. It all started when a handwritten script of paper was found behind the desk of a girl student taking the graduate examination in History. She denied having anything to do with the script of paper found a metre away from her seat. But, a regulation of the University draws presumptions in such a situation as if the script found near the examinee would be deemed to be in possession and on her person. 4. The University is the Allahabad University. The petitioners, a girl, sat in the examination for the Bachelor of Arts, final, in the year 1986. If all would have been well she would have passed the examination in 1986. On May 21, 1986 while she was answering the first paper in History at about 8.40 a.m. she was accused of using unfair means. The invigilator in the examination hall indicated to her that a piece of paper, with a handwritten script, lay at the back of her desk. It was presumed that this script of paper had nexus with her and then followed the presumption that having been found near her it tantamounted to being in her possession. The petitioner was charged, impliedly, with cheating on a presumption that the piece of handwritten paper found one metre away and at the back of her desk was within her reach. 5. The petitioner was charged, impliedly, with cheating on a presumption that the piece of handwritten paper found one metre away and at the back of her desk was within her reach. 5. Before this court goes into further facts as are on record it would be appropriate to see the ordinances which relate to, in reference to the context of, charging candidates and punishing them as a consequence of having indulged in unfair means at examination. These are Ordinances known as "Revised Ordinances on the Use of Unfair Means and in causing disturbances in examination." For the purpose of this case, Ordinance 1, 1.1, 1.2 (a) and (b) are relevant. The aforesaid Ordinances are reproduced below "1. UNFAIR MEANS 1.1 Candidates found using or attempting. aiding, abetting, or instigating to use unfair means at the examinations of University of Allahabad shall be punished. 1.2 DEFINITIONS (a) Unfair means: -- A candidate shall be deemed to have used "unfair means" if the candidate is in possession of unauthorised material or if he has transferred any part or the whole of the unauthorised material or if he intimidates or threatens or manhandles or uses violence against any invigilator or person on duty in the examination or if he leaves the examination hall without surrendering his examination script to an invigilator, or if he is found communicating with other examinees or any one else inside or outside the examination hall. (b) Possession of unauthrosed material "Possession of unauthorised material" by a candidate shall mean having any unauthorised material on his person or desk or chair or table or at any place within reach in the examination hall and its environs or having such material on him in the urinal/toilet or in the passage thereto or therefrom at any time from the commencement of the examination till its end." 6. The charge against the petitioner was that the aforesaid material was found at the back of the seat by the flying squad which keeps vigilance on students at the examination should they take recourse to unfair means. Consequent upon the material having been found about a metre away and at the back of her desk, the petitioner was questioned by the invigilator. She told the invigilator that the paper was not in the vicinity of where she was, that it may have come in with the breeze and she would not know when. Consequent upon the material having been found about a metre away and at the back of her desk, the petitioner was questioned by the invigilator. She told the invigilator that the paper was not in the vicinity of where she was, that it may have come in with the breeze and she would not know when. She further stated that the invigilator was free to compare the script of the material with her answer hook. It would be best to produce the explanation of the petitioner at the time when it was given to the invigilator though written by the latter. The text reads : "YE KAGAZ MERE PAS NAHIN THA. KAHAN SE UD KAR AYA? KIS SAMAI AYA MUJHEY PATA BHI NAHIN. CHAHE MERI KITAB SE MILA LIJIYE.". One aspect is relevant and on record of the invigilator's report prior to seeking the explanation of the petitioner in the examination hall. The report says that the flying squad found - what was found is not mentioned in the report-on the seat and simulaltaneously records by correction that it was found behind the seat. The text of the report in column I reads : "UDAN DASTEY NE SEAT PAR PEECHAY PADA PAYA." 7. The word'peechay' has been inserted by correction between the words 'par' and Pada. The report is in two different inks. The words 'udan dastey' is in blue ink and the rest of the words are in black ink. The invigilator report does no mention unauthorised material nor even suggests what was found either on the petitioner's desk or behind her. This, then, is the state of the record. I t was t hereafter that the petitioner was questioned when it was suggested to her that a piece of paper was found behind her desk. The petitioner's answer, clearly implied that a suggestion was made to her by the invigilator. Thus, from the report written on the spot by the invigilator, it is on record that what was alleged to have been found was not on her desk nor under her desk but behind her desk. So far as the University was concerned it was within its right to issue a show a cause notice to the petitioner, regard being had to the circumstances, that she was suspected of having used unfair means in the examination which she was taking. So far as the University was concerned it was within its right to issue a show a cause notice to the petitioner, regard being had to the circumstances, that she was suspected of having used unfair means in the examination which she was taking. No more can be said beyond the charge made against her. In a case like the present one, before a charge is made, it must rest on prudence and caution. 8. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated June 16, 1986 containing an allegation that she had used/attempted to use unfair means. It was alleged that unauthorised material was found near her. The unauthorised material was described as a sheet of paper with handwriting upon it (EK HASTH LIKHIT PANNA). In the face of this charge she was intimated that her examination of the year was being cancelled and she was being debarred from sitting in the examination of the subsequent year. The notice required her to submit her explanation to show cause why, in effect, the punishment indicated not be awarded. 9. The petitioners explanation to the Registrar is dated June 25, 1986. The explanation has been offered on her behalf by her father. The relevant aspects of the explanation are that the petitioner had nothing to do with the piece of paper which was found on the floor a metre away behind her desk, that the alleged unauthorised material was neither found on person nor on the seat of the petitioner; that the piece of paper was not shown to the petitioner and that she did not know whether it related to the question paper. It was also mentioned in the explanation that the petitioner had otherwise received first class marks in the Bachelor of Arts Part I examination and had also secured first class and the highest marks in Economics. It was pleaded that she has been wrongly implicated. 10. It took the University six months to indicate to the petitioner by its order of Dec. 10, 1986, that she had been awarded the punishment for attempting to use/using unfair means upon cancellation of the result of the examination of Bachelor's of Arts, Part II examination 1986 and that she had further been debarred from appearing in the subsequent examination scheduled during the year 1987. 10, 1986, that she had been awarded the punishment for attempting to use/using unfair means upon cancellation of the result of the examination of Bachelor's of Arts, Part II examination 1986 and that she had further been debarred from appearing in the subsequent examination scheduled during the year 1987. This implied that the petitioner, as a consequence of punishment awarded to her was to miss two academic years, i.e. of 1985-86 and 1986-87. The punishment as described and awarded in the order of the Registrar, University of Allahabad dated Dec. 10, 1986 is as follows - "K. Arti Srivastava B.A. 11 - 1986 Roll No. 27007 Senate House Allahabad Dated 10-12-86. Dear Sir, I am directed to inform you that in accordance with the provisions contained in the ordinances on the use of Unfair means and of causing disturbances on the Examination, 'You have been awarded following punishment for attempting/ using of unfair means at the B. A. I I Examination of 1986. Cancellation of your result of B.A. 11 Examination of 1986 and also debarment from corresponding (and any other) subsequent examination of 1987." 11. Asa consequence of the punishment awarded the academic year 1985-86 was lost, as indicated above it took the University six months to award the punishment. The petitioner appealed to the Chancellor of the University of Allahabad under S. 68 of the U.P. Universities Act, 1973. The petitioner's representation is dated January 1, 1987 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition). The petitioner submitted before the Chancellor that by record she is a good student, that she received no notice on the allegations of having used unfair means nor an indication on what she had done; that there was no connection with the paper which is alleged to have been found nor did the contents tally with answers given by her in the examination that an unreasoned order charged her of having used unfair means and it casts a stigma on her character, that the notice even indicated to her that she would be debarred from the 1987 examination also, that the show cause notice given to her was vague and did not contain any material upon which it can he said that she had used unfair means. In the petitioner's appeal to the Chancellor she sought the relief, in effect, that her result be declared and the order debarring her from the examination which were to commence in that year be set aside. 12. The order of the learned Chancellor on the petitioner's representation is dated Aug. 24, 1987. Her representation was partly allowed but it was a partial triumph without results. Logically as the decision of the Chancellor was delivered in Aug. 1987, the 1986 had already gone by a year ago. The result of this examination was treated as having been cancelled. But, the learned Chancellor set aside the punishment in so far as it related to debarring the petitioner from taking examination in 1987 i.e. the session 1986-87. The relief was redundant, a decision delivered seven months after the petitioner's representation and after the examination of 1987 had passed, the petitioner virtually had taken her punishment by not being able to reap the result of 1986 examination or take the 1987 examinations. 13. These then are the facts on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Tarun Agarwal has attacked the order of the Chancellor. This court had summoned the records of the University so that the matter can be seen in its better perspective as, the petitioner has been charged on a presumption of having used unfair means. 14. There is no doubt that it is upon presumption that the petitioner is alleged to have used unfair means. This is clear from a reading of the order of the learned Chancellor of 24 Aug. 1987. The order of the learned Chancellor in reference to the presumption drawn against the petitioner observed; Now adverting to the facts of the case, it appears as per statement of the petitioner herself that unauthorised material was found about one metre away on the floor behind her seat. This distance cannot be said to be beyond the reach of the petitioner. A perusal of the record shows that the invigilator in his report confirmed the facts that the flying squad found the unauthorised material behind the seat of the petitioner, while the petitioner claimed that this material in question came from out of the examination hall." 15. Learned Chancellor apparently has noticed Ordinance 1.2 (B) which refers to possession of unauthorised material. Learned Chancellor apparently has noticed Ordinance 1.2 (B) which refers to possession of unauthorised material. The said Ordinance reads : "1.2(B) Possession of unauthorised material : "Possession of unauthorised material" by a candidate shall mean having any unauthorised material on his person or desk or chair or table or at any place within reach in the examination hall and its environs or having such material on him in the urinal/toilet or in the passage thereto or therefrom at any time from the commencement of the examination till its end." 16. When the charge against a candidate is against presumption, and this is such a case, then the punishment to be awarded to the candidate is a consequential act as prior to it the quasi-judicial authority must seek the record for scrutiny that the punishing authority has examined every document and has satisfied itself upon facts, that the charge against the candidate has been made out beyond reasonable doubt and that the satisfaction of the punishing authority is fortified with reasons is on record. The quasi- judicial authority in reference to the context is also a fact finding authority. In a case of cheating, being possessed of unauthorised material, can be or has been used as sufficient proof to indict the candidate, the fact that the material has not been used by the examinee is irrelevant. Possessing, but not using an unauthorised material, comes within the category of an attempt to cheat, punishment must follow. The task of the examination committee in such circumstances in awarding punishment is relatively easy. But, then there are cases w here the possession of unauthorised material is deemed by fiction of law, in other words upon presumption. What ought to be the tests of satisfaction when a presumption of cheating is drawn against a candidate? This Court would have no hesitations in spelling out these tests but fortunately the Ordinance 1.6 on the subject matter gives guidelines to the Examination Committee, Ordinance 1.6 reads; "1.6 The Committee referred to in Ordinance 1.4 shall award the following punishment after placing on record that it has examined all the documents referred to in Ordinance 1.5 and that it has satisfied itself regarding the facts of the matter; "..........." It is also a matter of record, that the existence of this Ordinance, escaped the notice of the learned Chancellor. The following passage from the order of the Chancellor on the representation of the petitioner is relevant. "The satisfaction of the Examination Committee on the basis of material produced before it, is sufficient and in whatever terms the decision is expressed the order cannot be said to be bad in law." 17. The question of law is whether there is an obligation upon the examination committee that prior to awarding punishment in effect it would (a) place on record that it has examined all the documents as are referred to in Ordinance 1.5. The factors which need to be examined, and placed on record in reference to the Ordinance 1.5 are (b) report of the candidate having been found in possession of unauthorised material; (c) reply of the candidate in response to the notice of alleged charges; (d) the report of the examiner of using or transcribing unauthorised material found in possession of the candidate; (e) any report of the candidate intimidating, threatening or manhandling any person on duty of invigilation during examination and (f) any other material. In the present case relevancy is on aspects (a), (b), (c) and (f). It is not the case of the University of possession of unauthorised material 'on the person of the petitioner or her desk nor it is a case of threat or intimidation, etc. having been given by the examinee. The next aspect is satisfaction of the examination committee "regarding facts of the matter". Reading Ordinance 1.6 which casts certain obligations on the examination committee to set on record that it has examined the record of the candidate charged and further that it has satisfied itself regarding the facts of the matter which implies the issues of the charge, there is no doubt that there has been a manifest error on the face of the record when the learned Chancellor observes that; "The examination committee is not enjoined under any provisions of the Act or the Statute to give an elaborate finding and justify the decision with reasonings in order in make its order valid." The satisfaction which the examination committee must reach is a matter of internal procedure but Ordinance 1.6 obliges the examination committee to place its examination of the record and its satisfaction on the issues before it on record. The observation in the impugned order to the effect that the satisfaction of the examination committee is sufficient in whatever terms the decision is expressed, negates the purpose of the Ordinance 1.6 in cases where presumptions are drawn against a candidate on allegation of using unfair means, when the material has not been found on the person of the candidate but is deemed to be in possession because it has been found in the vicinity of the candidate. A charge on presumption, then, needs stricter proof and must be made beyond reasonable doubt as opposed to a charge when the unauthorised material is found on the person of a candidate. 18. Presuming that a candidate may have cheated is in itself an allegation where the charge rests on doubt. The charge must be based, after having been examined upon strict proof. The examination committee must be conscious of the fact that before a candidate is to be charged on presumption the allegation must rest beyond a reasonable doubt. The only aspect which is on record, otherwise not indicated to the candidate, is that the handwriting on the unauthorised material is in the hand of the petitioner.It must not be forgotten that the candidate had straightway told the invigilator in the face of circumstances that the material was found a.metre away from her desk, that she had nothing to do with the piece of paper; if the invigilator so desired he was free to compare and examine it with her answer book. In effect her defence was that the unauthorised material (a) had not been found on her person; (b) had been found a metre away from her desk; (c) a denial that it was not her handwriting and (d) a challenge to the invigilator to compare it then and there. 19. When an unauthorised material has been found on a person it does not make any difference firstly whether the material has been used and secondly whether it is in the handwriting of the candidate. Possession implies that it has been used or was intended to be used. This in itself sufficient to punish the candidate. Difficulties arise when the candidate is charged with cheating upon presumption that it has been found not on the person but away from him or her in the present case one metre away. Possession implies that it has been used or was intended to be used. This in itself sufficient to punish the candidate. Difficulties arise when the candidate is charged with cheating upon presumption that it has been found not on the person but away from him or her in the present case one metre away. In the impugned order the presumption is that the candidate could have access to it as it was within her reach. Again the reasoning itself draws analogies on presumption. As far the handwriting is concerned even this court is not in a position to return a finding even though the record is before it, beyond reasonable doubt, whether the handwriting is of the petitioner and simultaneously that it is not in the hand of the petitioner. In fact the learned counsel for the University also felt that it was not in a position to assert that it is the petitioners handwriting. 20. Again as the court has observed earlier when presumptions charge a candidate with an allegation of cheating then standards of proof have to become stricter and the charge must be established beyond reasonable doubt. The denial of the petitioner that the script was in her handwriting was not an after- thought. She had said so in the examination hall and she consistently repeated the plea before, the learned Chancellor. In reference of the handwriting, if presumptions were to be drawn against the petitioner, regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the present case and more so when the University took six months to deliver its decision by which time the examination of 1986, had in any case, passed and the decision of the learned Chancellor came after the examinations in 1987 had crossed, the script of paper ought to have been subjected to scrutiny of handwriting experts. The opinion of the handwriting expert if against the candidate would then have given the examination committee or the learned Chancellor basis to reach a satisfaction whether the candidate ought to be given a punishment it had intended to give. The opinion may have been in favour of the candidate, or the handwriting expert may have expressed doubts. And, then even if confirming the presumption would at the best opined that there is a resemblance between the handwriting on the alleged unauthorised material and the answer book. 21. The opinion may have been in favour of the candidate, or the handwriting expert may have expressed doubts. And, then even if confirming the presumption would at the best opined that there is a resemblance between the handwriting on the alleged unauthorised material and the answer book. 21. The reason why this court feels that on charge of presumption, when the unauthorised material has been found not on the person but near the candidate and possession is presumed, the standards of charging cheating have to be beyond reasonable doubt and upon strict proof as the view of this court is on the basis of two Full Bench decisions of this Court, by implication. These decisions were not cited at the Bar by either of the parties neither by the learned counsel for the petitioner nor for the respondents. These decisions relate to cases of cheating and here the similarity ceases. 22. But certain observations of the Full Bench cannot be ignored by this Court. The cases before the Full Bench related to cases conducted by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education. These were cases where the question before the Court was one of charging candidates under presumption but by strict logic. Then there is no statutory representation provided in the nature of appeal by right to question the decision of punishment awarded by the examination committee, the representation is by invitation. The first decision is in the matter of Triambak Tripathi v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad, AIR 1973 All 1 (FB). In this decision the Full Bench laid down the principle that before the examination committee there was no right conferred upon a candidate of being personally heard nor can the candidate demand the report of the examination committee before offering his explanation. In the matter before the Full Bench, the examination committee was not satisfied that the examinee could straightway have given an answer on the square root of a certain figure without carrying out the exercise of rough correct answer was too good to be true. In the matter before the Full Bench, the examination committee was not satisfied that the examinee could straightway have given an answer on the square root of a certain figure without carrying out the exercise of rough correct answer was too good to be true. Under reference to another question in the case before the Full Bench, where the equivalent weight of copper had to be found from the data mentioned in the question paper the examinee had resorted to taking aid of common mistakes which tallied with those other candidates, implying that the petitioner along with others had made the mistake of copying mistakes of other candidates. The presumption was found on strict logic, regard being had to the circumstances as in the Full Bench case, yet, the Hon'ble three Judges did not rule out the possibility of considering probabilities and circumstantial evidence, in the facts of a case. The Full Bench, was relying on a Supreme Court decision ( AIR 1966 SC 875 ) wherein it was observed. "In the matter of adoption of unfair means direct evidence may some times be available, but cases may arise where direct evidence is not available and the questions will have to be considered in the light of probabilities and circumstantial evidence." 23. The next decision is the matter of Ghazanfar Rashid v. Secy. Board of High School and Intermediate Education 1979 All LJ 676 : ( AIR 1979 All 209 ). In this case the Full Bench does examine the exercise which the candidate had indulged during examinations in reference to question No. 1 of Chemistry II paper of the Intermediate Examination of 1973. He got the right answer but as a consequence of wrong steps implying that the candidate knew nothing of the question which had been asked and had taken the answer out which was not the result of fluke but. adopting common mistakes of other examinees in the same examination place. The Full Bench was noticing the logic when large number of examinees cheat in concert and transcribe similar errors. The punishment awarded by the examination committee thus, was correct and left untouched in both the cases before the Full Bench. It is relevant and important to bear in mind the circumstances, and the perspective upon which the two Full Benches were declaring their decisions. The punishment awarded by the examination committee thus, was correct and left untouched in both the cases before the Full Bench. It is relevant and important to bear in mind the circumstances, and the perspective upon which the two Full Benches were declaring their decisions. The subsequent Full Bench notices the first decision and has set on record the parameters of the two decisions. The applicability of the Full Benches will be in reference to the context and the circumstances in which it was given as fortunately the answer is provided by the decisions of the Full Benches itself. The answer can be had in the decision reported in the matter of Ghazanafar Rashid v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education (supra) which virtually explains that (1) the decision is in the context of the examinations committee under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921; (2) it is in reference to questions relating to Mathematics, Physics or Chemistry; (3) it is in reference to presuming use of unfair means where candidates have resorted to giving correct answers but were arrived at upon common error and mistakes, thus giving rise to the presumption and inference by logic that the examinees have used unfair means. A passage in paragraph 21 from the aforesaid decisions is thus very relevant; "As discussed earlier it is not open to this court to interfere with the order of the examination committee on the ground that another view can be questioned relating to Mathematics, Physics or Chemistry if necessary answer is arrived at by an examinee through wrong workings it would be reasonably possible for the examination committee to draw an inference that the examinee had used unfair means." 24. In the context and circumstances as were examined by the two Full Benches the court held that in the face of correct answers derived with the aid of steps which were writ large with mistakes, all the mistakes being common to several examinees, the logic was the examinees recording common mistakes had resorted to unfair means. The proof rested on strict logic that the examinees had resorted to unfair means as between them they had common mistakes notwithstanding that the answers were correct. The Full Bench had also cautioned that its decision was in the context of facts which it was examining that is the issue of common mistakes and right answers. 25. The proof rested on strict logic that the examinees had resorted to unfair means as between them they had common mistakes notwithstanding that the answers were correct. The Full Bench had also cautioned that its decision was in the context of facts which it was examining that is the issue of common mistakes and right answers. 25. The decision of the Full Bench, regard being had to the circumstances in which they were rendered, thus do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 26. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited three decisions. The first in the matter of Man Mohan Sharma v. University of Lucknow, 1982 UPLBEC 118: (1982 All LI 55). In this case a student taking his LLB. Second year classes was confronted by the flying squad but nothing was found on his person. A piece of paper lying near the window where the petitioner's desk was, was taken as evidence. The petitioner was charged on the presumption of having cheat ed because an unauthorised material was found near him and his examination in the paper in question was cancelled. On the day when the flying squad picked up the paper which is alleged to have been found near the candidate a statement was made by him to the effect that : the paper found near his table and the paper did not relate to any question of the examination. The Bench hearing the matter took the view that the unfair means Sub Committee did not find that the candidate was actually in possession of the document in question and the charge levelled had not been established. The order cancelling the result of the petitioner was quashed and thereafter the University was directed to declare the result of the examinations. 27. The next case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in the matter of Allahabad University Teachers' Association v. Chancellor, Allahabad University, Lucknow, 1983 UPLBEC 154 : ( AIR 1982 All 343 ). The Chancellor had set aside the decision of the Examination Committee cancelling the examination of B.Com. Part II. The invigilator had found two handwritten chits of paper under the desk of the candidates. The Chancellor had set aside the decision of the Examination Committee cancelling the examination of B.Com. Part II. The invigilator had found two handwritten chits of paper under the desk of the candidates. The candidate had been charged and found guilty of possession of unauthorised material and of transcribing in part or whole of the unauthorised material The Chancellor, let off this candidate on the ground that the unauthorised material related to particular question which the candidate did not answer and further notwithstanding that the chits may have been found in possession of the candidate the University Authorities did not verify whether the chits were in handwriting of the candidate. The Chancellor was of the view that as the material had not been utilised the candidate had no intention of using or attempting to use unfair means. The Bench took the view, in effect, that if a candidate is found in possession then whether it has been used or not is irrelevant and the task of the Examination Committee to hold the candidate guilty is easy. The Allahabad Teacher's Association filed the petition in public interest to seek a declaration that the Chancellor's order in the face of the material having been found in possession of the candidate, the material having been found under his desk may not be treated as a general failure to let off students so lightly. The Association required this court to clarify that the decision may be confined to the facts of the case. The Association desired that the legal position be made clear so that the Chancellor's order may not have wide spread repercussions. This court found upon facts that the Chancellor did not give a finding on facts that the two chits were found under the table. The candidate admitted that they had been found from the side of his desk and there was no finding of the Examination Committee that the chits were in the handwriting of the candidate. The Chancellor ignored the finding on the question whether the unauthorised material had been found in possession of the candidate. The court declared the law that the question whether the unauthorised material was or was not in the handwriting of the candidate was not relevant when the candidate was found in possession of the unauthorised material. The Bench, in effect, did not agree with the order of the Chancellor. 28. The court declared the law that the question whether the unauthorised material was or was not in the handwriting of the candidate was not relevant when the candidate was found in possession of the unauthorised material. The Bench, in effect, did not agree with the order of the Chancellor. 28. The next case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in re Atul Goel v. Registrar University of Gorakhpur, Gorakhpur, 1985 UPLBEC 448: (1985 All LJ 968. In this case, unauthorised material was recovered from an examinee near his desk. It was not recovered, as the Bench observed from the petitioner's copy or table or person. The unauthorised material was a wooden scale with some writing on it. The Bench took the view that in reference to the two charges, the Examination Committee was obliged to record its reasons and it had not done so. The Bench took the view that in matters where a candidate is charged of using unfair means the rationale of arriving at a conclusion must be recorded. The Bench was considering the matter straightway upon the decision of the Examination Committee and had also taken the view that in certain exigencies, in reference to the context, it was not necessary that examinee must take a recourse to an appeal to the Chancellor under S. 68 of the Act, aforesaid. The Bench quashed the decision of the Examination Committee holding the examinee guilty of using unfair means. The Bench observes, "reasons are like link between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose as to how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi judicial. They should serve a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions recorded be shown to be manifestly unjust and unreasonable." 29. Now adverting back to the decision of the Chancellor and the cases which have been noted by this Court, that is the two Full Benches and three others, the criterion upon which the University was to test whether the petitioner had been guilty of using unfair means, were the regulations. These were Regulations 1.5 and 1.6. Now adverting back to the decision of the Chancellor and the cases which have been noted by this Court, that is the two Full Benches and three others, the criterion upon which the University was to test whether the petitioner had been guilty of using unfair means, were the regulations. These were Regulations 1.5 and 1.6. The burden on the Examination Committee to judge guilt becomes heavier when it is a case of a presumption when the unauthorised material has not been found and cannot be connected to be found on the person of the examinee. It must not be forgotten that the career of an examinee is likely to be jeopardised when the only factor is suspicion. There are cases of mass copying like those before the Full Bench,' this court took the view that common mistakes in the same examination and the same question were sufficient logic to show that unfair means had been utilised. In such cases it was necessary, to give a personal hearing to the candidates as the answer to the question shows stereo-type mistakes where examinee did not have t he ingenuity to camouflage the common mistakes which they were adopting, was sufficient proof against all those who carried common mistakes that the answers were copied from one another. 30. Now comes the case of the petitioner. The alleged unauthorised material, the record shows was found a metre away and at the back of the desk of the petitioner. There is no report on whether anyone was sitting at the back of the petitioner unless her's was the last desk. There is no report whether there, was a possibility of unauthorised material coming from the left or the right of candidates from the rows running parallel between which the petitioner was. The seating arrangement was not taken note of by the Examination Committee, nor was it before it. Now comes the question of the note being in the handwriting of the petitioner. The petitioner had never accepted that the unauthorised material had anything to do with her. She had (sic) out-right and on her own challenged the invigilator that the unauthorised material found at the hack of her desk and a metre away was not her' s and shehad noideahow it came into the examination hall notwithstanding that it may have come from the outside. She had (sic) out-right and on her own challenged the invigilator that the unauthorised material found at the hack of her desk and a metre away was not her' s and shehad noideahow it came into the examination hall notwithstanding that it may have come from the outside. Then it was suggested to her that it was in her handwriting. There is nothing on record to show that it was; she has straightway said that the unauthorised material may be compared with her handwriting if the invigilator desired. She had categorically said that the unauthorised material had nothing to do with her nor it was in her handwriting. Now come the questions of presumption linking the unauthorised material though not found on the person of the petitioner and admittedly a metre away from her desk, towards the back of her. No possible link can be brought between the petitioner and the unauthroised material in the examination hall. The Examination Committee recorded no reason except a finding and thereafter punished the petitioner. The finding was not fortified by any rationale or reason or any satisfaction upon which it may have been arrived at. The finding is, "The material is in her handwriting." Thereafter, the punishment is recorded : "Result cancelled, 1986. Debarred from 1987." 31. The only issue which remains is whether this finding is consistent with the obligation upon the Examination Committee under Ordinance 1.6. The Ordinance 1.6 places the burden on the Examination Committee that the punishment will be awarded after it places on record (1) that it has examined all the documents referred to in Ordinance 1.5 and (2) it has satisfied itself regarding the facts of the matter. The punishment is to be in accord with the criteria given in sub-clauses A, B and C of Ordinance 1.6. 32. Sub-clause C does not apply as this relates to manhandling, using violence against any invigilator or person on duty. This, left the Examination Committee, in reference to the case before it, Clauses A, and B. Clause A refers to (i) possession of unauthorised material or (ii) leaving the examination hall without surrendering the answer book to the invigilator or (iii) communicating with other examinees or any one inside the examination hall. This, left the Examination Committee, in reference to the case before it, Clauses A, and B. Clause A refers to (i) possession of unauthorised material or (ii) leaving the examination hall without surrendering the answer book to the invigilator or (iii) communicating with other examinees or any one inside the examination hall. Clause B refers to (i) transcribing any part or whole of the unauthorised material of which the examinee was found in possession or (ii) intimidating or threatening any invigilator or person on duty in the examination hall. Sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of Cl. A do not apply as it is not a case of leaving the examination hall nor communicating with other examinees. S ub-clause (ii) of Cl. B also does not apply, as it is not a case of intimidating or threatening any invigilator. This leaves consideration of sub-cl. (i) of Cl. (A) and clause B. The punishment awarded to the petitioner was after taking into account sub-el. (i) of Cl. B. For this she received the punishment of being debarred from the subsequent examination also, that is examination of 1987. The punishment of being debarred in the subsequent examination was set aside by the order of the learned Chancellor on the ground that she had not answered any question in reference to the alleged unauthorised material which have been found. 33. The only aspect which now remains is in reference to CL (A)(i), that is, possession of unauthorised material. It is,the case of the University that the material was not found on the person of the petitioner, but behind her desk and a metre away. Let the matter be tested as now whatever remains, is by presumption, that the alleged unauthorised material is of the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner in the examination hall at best was the unauthorised material was found at the back of the petitioner's desk, it was accepted that it was a metre Away from her desk. On this allegation the petitioner gave her reply that the material w as not found on her. It may have flown from outside and when, she would not know. She made a request that the material be compared with her answer book. It had already been placed on record that she had not utilised the material in answering the question. 34. It may have flown from outside and when, she would not know. She made a request that the material be compared with her answer book. It had already been placed on record that she had not utilised the material in answering the question. 34. The petitioner was not intimated with any amount of certainty or exactness of the charges against her. The show cause notice of 16 June, 1986 was vague. The charge is, simultaneously, of having used unauthorised means and attempting to use unauthorised means. It is on record that no body saw her and it is also on record that the material was not found on her person but a metre away at the back of her desk. The show cause notice mentioned the unauthorised material as a handwritten paper (sic) as far the petitioner is concerned there was no charge against her, firstly that she had been found using the unauthorised material or secondly that the unauthorised material was on her person. She could only answer a charge as best as it was conveyed to her. Her answer to the show cause notice was dated 24 June, 1986 and in that she specifically mentioned that she had not been asked whether the paper belonged to her or not, nor any attempt was made to compare the contents and the handwriting of the paper and the answer book. She even mentioned in her reply that the unauthorised material had not been shown to her. The charges against her were vague. So were the findings that the material was in her handwriting in the absence of any reasons on record, as this accusation was not in the invigilators record that the material was in her handwriting or in the show cause notice, and this was an allegation which the petitioner had not been called upon to answer. The only thing which remained before the Examination Committee was whether the unauthorised material could be deemed to be in her possession. The finding of the Examination Committee that the material was in her handwriting was beyond the report made, by the invigilator in the examination hall. The only thing which remained before the Examination Committee was whether the unauthorised material could be deemed to be in her possession. The finding of the Examination Committee that the material was in her handwriting was beyond the report made, by the invigilator in the examination hall. In any case the ordinance obliged the Examination Committee to set its reasons and satisfaction on record on how it came to the conclusion, when the invigilator had not reported and the show cause notice did not allege that the material was in the petitioner's handwriting. The Examination Committee was virtually making out a charge for the first time that the handwriting was of the petitioner. The finding was beyond the obligations set in ordinance 1.6, not fortified by the reasons, and is perverse. 35. This leaves the matter of possession of the unauthorised material being related to the petitioner. The learned Chancellor had no doubt that the unauthorised material was at the back of the petitioner's desk and about a metre away. A metre is such a distance in the examination hall which may not be with in easy reach of the petitioner and more so when the material was found at her back. One metre is virtually, 3.3 feet. It is not within reach of the hand moreover. if it is at the back and about a metre away then it may be within the reach of the person whose desk is at the back. Could this be so. After all in an examination hall the rows between the examinees are set about a meter away and desks in a row (sic) than a metre away. Could the piece of paper be nearer the desk which was at the back, or there was no desk at the back? Thus, when presumption have to be' drawn to deem a possession on a charge of cheating, like the present one, then there are two courses open to the court, either the ordinances be struck (sic) as ultra vires as it switches presumption of innocence or in the alternative the ordinances must be left intact and the obligation cast upon the University that in such circumstances the charge against a candidate be based upon strict proof or one which is beyond reasonable doubt. Like in the cases before the Full Bench where there is mass copying and examinees adopt common mistakes, the presumption is that each has copied the mistake of the other. Nothing further is to be proved; as the logic holds with the facts and circumstances. In the present case, the presumption that an unauthorised material was found at the back of the petitioner and it should be deemed as if it was possession on writ large with doubts (sic). 36. The doubt remains at the same stage hen the petitioner was accused in the examination hall that there was a piece of paper at the back of her desk. The doubt has not been explained from the record. And on a doubt the petitioner cannot be accused of having used unfair means. The satisfaction and the reasons which were to be recorded by the Examination Committee, an obligation under the ordinance before inflicting the punishment, are absent. The punishment based on a doubt must be set aside. 37. The order of the learned Chancellor is partly correct when it questioned the Examination Committee for awarding punishment to the candidate when she had not utilised the alleged unauthorised material. The Chancellor had rightly set aside the punishment which debarred her from the subsequent year. But the punishment which the learned Chancellor upheld, that it is cancellation of the examination on the ground that the possession would be deemed by presumption and that the unauthorised material was in the handwriting of the petitioner, cannot be sustained. The reasons why the punishment inflicted by the Examination Committee cannot be upheld have already been given and are not being repeated. The order of the learned Chancellor, thus, upholding the charge of cheating, constitute error apparent on the face of the record and is not in conformity with the Ordinances upon which the Examination Committee is obliged to place its satisfaction and reason on record, prior to inflicting the punishment. 38. The order conveyed to the petitioner by the Deputy Registrar (Examination), University of Allahabad, dated 10 December, 1986- conveying the punishment of the cancellation of her result of B.A. (II) Examination 1986 and debarment from the corresponding subsequent Examination of 1987, is quashed as contained an imputation of using unfair means at the examination. 38. The order conveyed to the petitioner by the Deputy Registrar (Examination), University of Allahabad, dated 10 December, 1986- conveying the punishment of the cancellation of her result of B.A. (II) Examination 1986 and debarment from the corresponding subsequent Examination of 1987, is quashed as contained an imputation of using unfair means at the examination. The punishment for cancelling the result of B.A. (II) Examination of 1986 has in any case been set aside by the learned Chancellor. That part of the order of learned Chancellor dated 24 August, 1987 which upholds the decision of the Examination Committee insofar as it relates to the cancellation of the petitioner's examination of B.A. (II) for the year 1986, is hereby declared as being an error and is declared as non-operative. 39. The Writ petition is, thus, allowed with costs.