JUDGMENT Dr. R. R. Misra, J. 1. This is yet another case which has come to this court which depicts the arbitrary manner in which the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad has punished the petitioner who appeared as a regular candidate in the High School Examination of 1988 conducted by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Bareilly Region, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as the Parishad). The Roll Number allotted to the petitioner was 341450. 2. The result of the petitioner was withheld on the ground of suspected use of unfair means in Mathematics II Paper. The charge against the petitioner was to the effect that necessary rough calculation to arrive at the answer of question No. 4 (e) in Mathematics II Paper was not done by the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the charge by saying that the said rough calculation does find place in one of the answer-books of the petitioner. The Board, however, was not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner and ultimately his result for the said examination was cancelled. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. Under orders of this court, the Standing Counsel was required to produce not only the answer-books, the show cause notice and the reply of the petitioner but the entire record in regard to the centre at which the petitioner had appeared in the Mathematics II Paper. In compliance thereof, the same have been produced by the Board. 4. From a perusal of the documents produced before us, we find that the petitioner had attempted answer to question no. 4 (e) of Mathematics II Paper in answer-book B and a rough calculation in regard to the said question has also been done by him in another answer-book B. The petitioner had at the earliest opportunity, in reply to the show cause notice.' also stated that he has in fact made a rough calculation in the answer book before answering the said question finally. FROM the answer-books produced before us, we find that the said claim of the petitioner stands substantiated inasmuch as there is a rough calculation in answer book B before the said question had been attempted and answered by the petitioner in answer-book B. Sri K. L. Gupta, Deputy Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate education, Bareilly Region, Bareilly, in paragraph 3 of the supplementary counter-affidavit has also accepted the above position. In the said paragraph Sri Gupta has submitted an explanation as to why the petitioner was awarded punishment for the use of unfair means. The explanation is as follows :- "It is further submitted that the instructions printed on the back of the answer book, instruction no. 4 shows that the rough work should be done by the student on the left side of the page and in normal course this should have been done by the student on the adjacent left side of the page on which he has given the answer and for the reasons best known to the petitioner, he has given the answer in the other page which creates doubt and this led the Nistaran Committee to believe that the work has not been done by the petitioner, therefore, he was awarded punishment for the using of unfair means." 5. It may be that the petitioner may not have literally obeyed instruction no. 4 in regard to the doing of rough work on the left side of the page but the fact remains, and which has also been admitted in the supplementary counter affidavit of Sri K. L. Gupta, that for arriving at his answer finally, the petitioner had in fact, done the rough work in the other answer-book. The mere fact that the rough work has not been done by a student on the adjacent left side of the page does not mean that, on the facts of this case, the petitioner is guilty of using unfair means. That apart the stand taken by Sri K. L. Gupta, Deputy Secretary, in his supplementary counter-affidavit is not supported by any of the documents produced before us. They clearly show that the basis of punishment is entirely different and is not that which has been sought to be explained to the Court by Sri K. L. Gupta as aforesaid in his supplementary counter-affidavit. 6. From the other documents pouduced before us by the Board in pursuance of the directions given by us, we find that on the basis of the charges framed against certain students the Enquiry Committee had gone on the spot and had jotted down the explanation of the examinees concerned. Thereafter the matter was put up before the Subject Experts who had also after going through the record noted their findings and had made their recommendations. Thereafter the matter was put up before the Subject Experts who had also after going through the record noted their findings and had made their recommendations. Thereafter various cases were put up before the Screening Committee whose orders form the basis of passing the orders of either declaring the result of the relevant examinees or cancellation of their results. In order to find out as to whether the Screening Committee acted arbitrarily, it is pertinent to note down the extracts relating to certain examinees as are available on record. From a perusal of the above, it is clear that in regard to question no. 4(e), rough work was done by the candidates bearing Roll Nos. 341399, 341450 (petitioner) 341465, 341466, 341511, 341521, 341535, 341543 and 341548, yet without any basis and without setting out any reasons the Screening Committee has declared the results of the candidates bearing Roll Nos. 341399, 341511, 341521 and has cancelled the results of the candidates bearing Roll Nos. 341550 (petitioner), 341465, 341466, 341535, 341543 and 341548. It does not stand to reason as to how the Screening Committee has arrived at the aforesaid two inconsistent conclusions. Thus we conclude that the result of the petitioner in the present case has been cancelled arbitrarily while his case was similar to those of Roll Nos. 341399, 341511 and 341521. 7. Another illustration of the arbitrariness of the decision of the Screening Committee is to be found from the excerpts in the case of candidates bearing Roll Nos. 341617 and 341618. Although facts with regard to the above two candidates are the same still the Screening Committee has cancelled the result of Roll Nos. 341617 for the examination of 1988 but has in addition to the said punishment also debarred the candidate bearing Roll No. 341611 from appearing at the examination of the Board tor the year 1989. It is not understandable as to how on similar facts two different punishments have been inflicted 8. From a perusal of the provisional marks-sheet issued to the petitioner also, we find that in each of the six subjects he had obtained 65% marks in Hindi, 64% marks in English, 73% marks in Mathematics, 67% marks in Science, 75% marks in Social Science (thereby earning a distinction mark) and 59% marks in Biology. In the Junior High School Examination also, the petitioner had obtained 84.5% marks. In the Junior High School Examination also, the petitioner had obtained 84.5% marks. On the facts of this case we are convinced that the petitioner is a meritorious student. Thus from the material placed before us, we are satisfied that the conclusions arrived at by the Screening Committee in the case of the petitioner is arbitrary and consequently the order of the Board cancelling the result of High School Examination of the petitioner for the year 1988 was not justified under the law and is liable to be set aside. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) payable by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad The order passed by the opposite parties cancelling the result of the petitioner for the High School Examination of the year 1988 is hereby quashed. The Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad (respondent no 1) is directed to issue a fresh marks-sheet of the petitioner about his result of the High School Examination of 1988. 10. In view of what we have demonstrated above, we also direct in the interest of justice that the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad should in future issue instructions to the Screening Committee that in case they differ with the recommendation of the Enquiry Committee or with the report of the subject expert, they must record their reasons for doing so. Since we find that sufficient time has elapsed and the petitioner is eligible to appear at the Intermediate Examination of the year 1990, we also direct the Intermediate Board to condone the delay in the submission of his forms for the Intermediate Examination of 1990 in case such form is submitted by the petitioner within six weeks from the date of passing of this order. 11. Let a copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within two days.