BHARGAVA, J.—All these writ petitions involve similar facts and therefore, are being disposed of by this common order. (2) Taking the facts of Writ Petition No. 5154 of 1991 Satya Narain vs. Board of Secondary Education. (3) As per the facts mentioned in the writ petition, the petitioner passed his Secondary School Examination in first division in the year 1989 and appeared in Senior Higher Secondary (Academic) Examination; 1991 with Roll No. 8514, conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as the respondent Board). The centre of examination was Vivekanand Secondary School, Dausa. The petitioner received a communication dated 19.7.91 in which the petitioner was alleged to have copied from answer books of some other examinees in one paper viz., Biology-II Part A and was shown to be guilty of using unfair means and that the Results Committee had found a prima facie case and therefore, the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation by 2-8-1991, and present himself before the Enquiry Officer on 7.8.91. The petitioner was also directed to produce any documentary evidence on 7-8-91. The petitioner submitted his written explanation in reply to the said notice and also appeared before the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education where the answer books of the petitioner were also shown along with the answer book of a student bearing Roll No. 8398. Thereafter, a news appeared in Daily Navajyoti dated 12.8.1991 that the petitioner was found guilty of mal-practice by the respondent Board and therefore, his examination was cancelled. The petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent Board but did not receive any reply. Hence, he filed the present writ petition on 4.9.1991. Notices were issued as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and disposed of. A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent Board on 27.11.1991 in which they have submitted that the Examiner who checked the answer books of Chemistry Paper-1 part-A and Part-B and Mathematics Paper-1 Part B pointed out in his report that the petitioner had copied certain answers from other candidates bearing Roll Nos. 8509, 8513 and 8398. The Results Committee prima facie found that the petitioner was guilty and therefore, a show cause notice was issued stating that the petitioner had used unfair means in answering the above questions and he was asked to appear for personal hearing on 7.8.91. 8509, 8513 and 8398. The Results Committee prima facie found that the petitioner was guilty and therefore, a show cause notice was issued stating that the petitioner had used unfair means in answering the above questions and he was asked to appear for personal hearing on 7.8.91. The petitioner was given personal hearing. The petitioner was given personal hearing and the entire record including the report of the Examiner his answer books as well as the answer books of other roll numbers were shown to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a statement in his own handwriting before the Enquiry Officer. After giving full opportunity of hearing & after taking into consideration the whole material, the Enquiry Officer found that the charges levelled against the petitioner in respect of Chemistry Paper-I part-A and B and Mathematics Paper-I Part-B were proved and the petitioner was guilty of copying in respect of Chemistry Paper-1, Part-A with Roll No. 8509 only and Mathematics Paper-I part-B with Roll No. 8513. The report of the Enquiry Officer as well as all other material was considered by the Results Committee and it decided to cancel the examination of the petitioner held in 1991, and the said decision was published in the newspaper and also communicated to the school through which the petitioner did appear. (4) Arguments have been heard and record of the case has-been perused. Learned counsel for the respondent Board has shown to me the report of the Enquiry Officer as also the copies of the petitioner and other students from which copying is alleged to have been made. He has placed before me the instructions issued by the Board to the Examiners and Centre Supdts. He has placed reliance on an unreported decision of this Court in Anay Kumar vs. The Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer (1) and Dhurnath vs. Board of Secondary Education and another (2). In both these cases, the writ petition had been dismissed because the court found that the principles of natural justice were followed and the petitioner was given opportunity to explain his conduct. It was held that the Court should be slow in interfering in such matters in the larger interest of public. In both these cases, the writ petition had been dismissed because the court found that the principles of natural justice were followed and the petitioner was given opportunity to explain his conduct. It was held that the Court should be slow in interfering in such matters in the larger interest of public. (5) On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education vs. State (3) wherein the Calcutta High Court has held that misconduct by a candidate or the mal practice should be detected in the examination hall itself before the answer book is deposited. These observations are of no avail in the present case because it is not possible to find out if one student has copied from other student; if he had been found copying he would have been stopped at the time of examination only. In the present case, it was the Examiner who after going through the answer books found that the students had copied from each other. (6) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on Tribhu-wannath Pandey vs. Govt. of India (4), Amulya Ratan Mukherjee vs. Dy. Chief Mechanical Engineer (5) and Surath Chandra Chakravarty vs. The State of West Bengal (6) and submitted that the charge must be specific and set out all particulars but none of these cases apply to the facts of the present case because they deal with the disciplinary proceedings only. (7) My attention has also been drawn to Ku. Renu Tyagi vs. State of UP and others (7) which was a case of mass copying based on mere suspicion and the result of some of the students on such charges was with-held. The court found that the allegations of mass copying were based on mere suspicion and there was no evidence to support the same and no opportunity of hearing was given to the students, therefore, the order withholding the result of the students violated the principles of natural justice. (8) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn any attention to Raj Kumar Singh vs. University of Allahabad and others (8). In that case the court found that there was no evidence showing that any printed matter was either seized from the petitioner or from any place within his reach in the examination hall and therefore, the order cancelling the result was quashed. In that case the court found that there was no evidence showing that any printed matter was either seized from the petitioner or from any place within his reach in the examination hall and therefore, the order cancelling the result was quashed. (9) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole matter and have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. (10) It will be pertinent to note down certain provisions contained in the Instructions issued by the respondent Board to the Examiners, which deal with use of unfair means during examination. (9) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole matter and have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. (10) It will be pertinent to note down certain provisions contained in the Instructions issued by the respondent Board to the Examiners, which deal with use of unfair means during examination. ^^¼d½ ijh{kk d{k esa fdlh vH;kFkhZ dks lgk;rk nsuk vFkok mlls ;k vU; fdlh O;fDr ls lgk;rk izkIr djukA ¼[k½ ijh{kd }kjk fjikVZ fd;s ekeys ftuesa ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa us ijLij udy dj vFkok@ rFkk fdlh iqLrd@dqath vFkok@rFkk vU; lw+ dh lgk;rk ls izuksa ds mRrj fy[ks gksA** (11) Clauses 21-3(3) (4) (A), 4 3TT and 21-3 (3) (5) as also 21-6 (O) reads as under : — ^^¼v½ ,sls ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa ds ekeys ifj.kke lfefr ds le{k j[ks tkoasxs ftudks mRrj iqfLrdkvksa ds tkWp ds le; ijh{kdksa }kjk dksbZ vkifRrtud lkexzh ikbZ tkos vFkok ftudh mRrj iqLrdksa esa fd;s x;s izuksa ds mRrj nwljs ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dh mRrj iqfLrdk esa fd;s x;s izuksa ds mRrjksa ls vf/kdkakr% feyrs gks vFkok ijh{kd dks ijh{kkFkhZ dh mRrj iqfLrdk tkaprs ,slk lansg gks fd mlus ijh{kk ds le; vuqfpr lk/kuksa dk iz;ksx fd;k gS vFkok ftUgksaus fdlh ijh{kd ds fu.kZ; dks izHkkfor djus dh dksfkk dh gksA ¼vk½ ;fn fdlh ijh{kk dsUnz ds ckjs esa cksMZ dks fdlh Hkh lzksr ls ;g lwpuk feys fd laiw.kZ ijh{kk dssUnz ij vFkok dqN dejksa esa fdlh fo"k;@fo"k;ksa vFkok i=@i=ksa dh ijh{kkvksa eaas vuqfpr lk/kuksa dk o`gn~ Lrj ij iz;ksx gqvk gS vkSj mudh lR;rk dh tkap djokus ij tks rF; izdV gks] mlls dk;kZy; iw.kZr;k vkoLr gks fd okLro esa laiw.kZ dsUnz ij vFkok dfri; dejksa esa ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa us o`gn~ Lrj ij vuqfpr lk/kuksa dk iz;ksx fd;k gS rks ,sls ekeys Hkh ifj.kke lfefr ds le{k j[ks tkosaxsA 3&¼5½ ;fn ijh{kk ds le; dk vFkok blls lacaf/kr dksbZ ekeyk mi;qZDr fdlh Hkh izko/kku ds vUrxZr u vk;s rks Hkh dsUnzk/kh{kd ¼;fn vko;d le>s rks½ ml ekeys esa bu fofue;ksa eas crkbZ xbZ i)fr ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA 6¼vks½ fofue; 3 ¼4½ ¼v½ ds vUrxZr ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij ;fn fdlh ijh{kkFkhZ dh mRrj iqLrd esa fd;s x;s izuksa ds mRrj vU; ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dh mRrj iqfLrdk esa fd;s x, izuksa ds mRrjksa ls vf/kdkak% feyrs gks vFkok ijh{kkFkhZ us izuksa ds mRrj fy[kus esa fdlh iqLrd] dqth vFkok@ rFkk vU; lw= dh lgk;rk yh gks rks mldh orZeku ijh{kk fujLr dj mls vkxkeh ,d o"kZ ds fy, ijh{kk esa cSBus ls oafpr dj fn;k tkosA (12) In short, above is the procedure provided by the Board which is supposed or expected to be followed before any student is punished. In the present case, as has been mentioned above, this procedure has been followed as also general principles of natural justice have also not been violated. Therefore, keeping in mind the observations of this Court in Ajay Kumar and Dhurnaths cases (supra), it is not proper to interfere in such matters in extraordinary writ jurisdiction, more so when on merits, after comparing the two answer books, and keeping in mind the explanation furnished by the petitioner, I do not find that the report of the Enquiry Officer adopted by the Results Committee needs any interference. 1 also find that the respondent Board has taken a lenient view and has awarded a very reasonable punishment which action also cannot be said to be excessive. The Board could have debarred the petitioner from further examination but is has only cancelled the present examination. (13) In this view of the matter, I do not find any force in these writ petitions and they are hereby dismissed. (14) However, it is directed that the Board shall take a lenient and sympathetic-view, as a special case, in allowing the petitioners to fill up the forms this year even though the time may have passed out. The Board should allow the petitioners to appear in the examination which are going to be held in 1992 so that their one more year is not wasted because the petitioners had filed writ petitions well in time but the procedure in the Court has taken so much time in deciding the matter. The petitioners may not have filled the forms in the hope that their writ petitions would be allowed. (15) No order as to costs.