JUDGMENT G.P. Mathur, J. - The petitioner appeared in the High School Examination conducted by the Board of High School & Intermediate Education, U. P., in the year 1989. Initially the result of the petitioner was with-hold but subsequently the Bord cancelled his result. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the aforesaid order passed by the Board. 2. On 17-1-1990 respondent was directed to file a counter-affidavit which order has been complied with. The learned Standing Counsel has also produced the relevant records before me today. The charge against the petitioner was that while answering question No. 7 (b) of 2nd paper he did not do the rough work. The petitioner had solved question No. 7(b) and at the end he had arrived at a figure 4-771/404. After writing this figure he wrote it to be equal to 11.8. The necessary rough work for dividing 4771 by 404 was not done. The Screening Committee visited the college and directed the petitioner to give his explanation as to how he arrived at the figure 11.8. The petitioner gave a reply that on account of paucity of time he did necessary calculation orally and thereafter arrived at the final figure. He further stated that he had not done any copying and had solved the question himself. It appears that the Screening Committee submitted a report that the petitioner had resorted to unfair means on which the Board cancelled the high school examination result of the petitioner for the year 1989. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the relevant record. As such the present petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage in accordance with the Rules of Court. 4. I have examined the answer book of the petitioner. The petitioner has solved question No. 7 (b) in detail. After doing the necessary calculation the petitioner arrived at figure 4771/104 and thereafter he wrote it to be equal to 11.8. Only at this last stage the requisite calculation has not been done. The petitioner stated in his explanation that he did the necessary calculation mentally and as there was shortage of time he did not write it on the copy. The explanation given by the petitioner appears to be plausible and satisfactory. It cannot be said that a student cannot mentally divide the figure 4771 by 404. The petitioner stated in his explanation that he did the necessary calculation mentally and as there was shortage of time he did not write it on the copy. The explanation given by the petitioner appears to be plausible and satisfactory. It cannot be said that a student cannot mentally divide the figure 4771 by 404. No reasonable person can draw an inference that the petitioner has used unfair means only because of the fact that this small calculation has not been written in the answer book. In my opinion the decision of the authorities is wholly perverse. 5. It may be mentioned here that another student of the same institution, namely, Servesh Kumar, had challenged a similar order passed by the respondent cancelling his High School examination result on the ground that he had not done the necessary calculation in solving question No. 7 (b) of the Mathematics 2nd paper. He filed Writ Petition No. 5393 of 1990 which was allowed by this Court on 1-8-1990. 6. In the result this writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The decision of the respondent is quashed. The respondent is directed to declare the result of the petitioner within two weeks of the production of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner. The respondent will permit the petitioner to appear in the Intermediate examination of the year 1991 in accordance with rules. 7. The petitioner may be supplied a certified copy of this order within three days on payment of usual charges.