Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. In this application the petitioners inter alia prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the revised results of the petitioners in their favour purported to be in terms of Annexures-12, 12/1 and 12/2 to the writ application. 2. Beraft of all unnecessary details, the fact of the matter is as follows ; 3. The petitioners appeared in the Secondary School Examination in the year 1991. The respondent No.6 fixed the examination centres of code No.9101, 9103, 9110, 9120, 9121, 9149, 9150 and 9153 to different schools. However, by reason of various memos which are contained in annexure-5 series, new examination centres were fixed. The examination commenced on 26-3-1991 in Gopal Singh Inrer College, Nayagaon, Saran centre pursuant to the aforementioned Annexure-5 series. It was allegedly found by the Respondent No.6 upon an inspection made by him on 30th march, 1991, that more than three students were sitting on a Bench and, thus, he directed Respondent No 7 to put up Samiana and arrange conduct of examination in a better manner Allegedly, upon a report made by Respondent No.6. Mathematics Paper No.1 examination whereof was hold on 1st March, 1991 and Biology examination whereof was held on 3-4-1991 were cancelled. Programme for re-examination of the said papers was issued on 27-4-1991 and the petitioners filled up the requisite forms therefor. The petitioners appeared in Mathematics Paper-I and Biology paper from V. M. High School, Siwan. 4. The petitioners have contended that from the despatch register dated 5-4-1991 (Annexure-7) it could appear that from Gopal Singh Inter college, Nayagaon, Suran Centre 1243 students appeared. The result of the said examination was published on 30th June, 1991 which are contained in Annexure-8 series. However, the result of examination centres bearing Code Nos.9103, 9110, 9120, 9121, 9149, 9150 and 9133 were withheld as is evident from Annexure-9 to the writ application. 5. According to the petitioners, they secured total marks 608, 626 and 628 respectively. The petitioner upon enquiry came to learn that the result of the petitioners and others had been withheld pending an enquiry by the Unfair means Enquiry Committee. 5. According to the petitioners, they secured total marks 608, 626 and 628 respectively. The petitioner upon enquiry came to learn that the result of the petitioners and others had been withheld pending an enquiry by the Unfair means Enquiry Committee. The said Committee submitted his report on 26-7-1991 to Respondent No.1 recommending therein that the examination be cancelled and re-examination be held and if it be found that the punishment would be severe, 20% marks (excepting the marks of math I and Biology) from each paper be scaled down and further to withheld the result of those candidates against whom serious charges have been levelled and action be taken against them. The report of the enquiry Committee dated 26-7-1991 are contained in Annexures 11 and 11/1. By reason of the impugned order as contained in Annexure-12, thereafter, the result of the petitioners were published on 22-8-1991 by reducing the marks of the petitioners to 510, 526 and 528 respectively in place of 508, 625 and 628 respectively. The petitioners have contained that in terms of a Notification which is contained in Annexure-13 to the. writ application, it would appear that various punishments have been provided therein which also does not include reduction of any marks from the marks obtained by the examiner. 6. The contention of the petitioners is that there is no provision of scaling down of 20% marks arid as before the issuance of the said order, they were not given an opportunity of hearing the impugned order as contained in Annexure-12 series to the writ application, must be held to be invalid in law. 7. The respondents in their counter-affidavit have pointed out that result of Code No.9101 was published by mistake. It is admitted that no action could be taken as against the students of Code No.9101 and 9150 due to inadvertence. It is also stated in the Notification as contained in anncxure-13 applies to only individual examinees but in case where malpractices have been resorted to in the examination centre. Regulation 18 and 19 of Bihar School Examination Board Regulation, 1964, are applicable it has further been contended that as the instructions of the Board were not followed by the Centre Superintendent of Gopal Singh Inter college, Nayagaon, Saran, Math-1 and Biology papers were cancelled on the recommendation of the District Magistrate. Regulation 18 and 19 of Bihar School Examination Board Regulation, 1964, are applicable it has further been contended that as the instructions of the Board were not followed by the Centre Superintendent of Gopal Singh Inter college, Nayagaon, Saran, Math-1 and Biology papers were cancelled on the recommendation of the District Magistrate. The said recommendation of the District Magistrate is dated 15-4-1991 contained in Annexure-8 to the counter-affidavit. 8. The Respondent-Board has framed Regulation known as Bihar school Examination Board Regulation, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred as the said Regulation. 9. Regulations 18 and 19 of the said Regulation read as follows : regulation 18.-Malpractice, indiscipline, etc :- in any case where it is found that the examination has been violated by error, inproper conduct, or other cases or where malpractice, fraud, or act of indicipline or use of unfair means are reported to have been practised to the Board shall have the the power to cancel the examination or to withheld or amend the result in such cases and to take result in such cases and to take such other action as it may deem fit. " Regulation 19.-"in any case where the result of the examination has been ascertained and published and it is found that such result has been affected by error, mal-practice, fraud, or any other cause whereby an examinee has in the opinion of the board been party to or privy to or connived at such malpractice, fraud, or improper conduct the Board shall have power at any time, notwithstanding the issue of the certificate to amend the result of such examinee and to make such declaration as it may consider necessary in that behalf. " 10. From a perusal of the aforementioned Regulations, it is evident that the Board has the power to cancel the examination on to withhold the result of such cases. The said Regulation read with the Notification as contained in Annexure-13 to the writ application, evidently do not empower the Board to deduct 20% marks. 11. Roll Code of the petitioners was 9149 and their Roll Numbers were 0946, 0947 and 0948. From Annexure-11/1 to the writ application, it does not appear that therein the Roll Numbers of the petitioners have been mentioned. 12. It is admitted that on 31st March, 1991, the District Magistrate recommended cancellation of Math I paper only. 11. Roll Code of the petitioners was 9149 and their Roll Numbers were 0946, 0947 and 0948. From Annexure-11/1 to the writ application, it does not appear that therein the Roll Numbers of the petitioners have been mentioned. 12. It is admitted that on 31st March, 1991, the District Magistrate recommended cancellation of Math I paper only. It is admitted that, thereafter, re-examination was held for Math-I paper and the Biology paper. Even at that stage, no report was made to this effect. Respondents have further contended that in this view of the matter, the matter was referred to Unfair Means Enquiry Committee and it accepted the suggestion of the said Committee that 20% marks of all the 13 papers be dedducted. The Enquiry Committee consisting of Sri Dev Narayan Singh balmiki Singh and Dwarika Singh pointed out that the answers of questions of some acts were distributed in some centers which were occupied by the examinees, which according to the Committee appears from the common mistakes committed by several examinees. The Committee further recommended that there had been overwhelming instances of over-marking as well as erratic" marking. Even the same answer books appear to have been examined by different examiners. 13. This Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot embark upon an enquiry fpr the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of otherwise of the report. The Board was, however, required to deal with the matter in terms of Regulations 18 and 19 only. Regulation 18, of course, empowers the Board to cancel the examination or withheld the examination or to amend the result of such cases or to take such other action as it may deem fit. But by that, it may not be meant that the Board is also empowered to deduct 20% marks of all the candidates without any reason. Apart from the question of jurisdiction for passing such order by the Board there must be some rationality behind it. It is true that in a case where unfair means are adopted on a mass scale, the Board has to take a strict attitude. But in this case, it appears that the Enquiry Committee might have been in a position to isolate the cases in respect whereof irregularities have been committed. 14. It is true that in a case where unfair means are adopted on a mass scale, the Board has to take a strict attitude. But in this case, it appears that the Enquiry Committee might have been in a position to isolate the cases in respect whereof irregularities have been committed. 14. It is also a case where the Board should have taken stern action against the erring invigilators and examiners. We feel that adoption of unfair means can be eradicated to some extent if action is also taken against the invigilators and examiners apart from the examinees. Possibilities of collusion of the Board Officials and the teachers cannot also be ruled out. 15. For the reasons aforementioned, this application is allowed and the Respondent Board is directed to pass a fresh order in respect of the petitioners in accordance with law. As the petitioners appeared in 1991 examination, the Board is directed to take a decision in the matter with utmost expedition and not later that one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs. S. Hoda, J.-I agree. Writ application allowed.