JUDGMENT : J.M. Mahapatra, J. - The short question falling for decision in this writ application concerns the legality of the scratching of the entire Madhyama Examination of 1990 in respect of B. N. High School Centre, Nayagarh conducted by Sri Jagannatb Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, opposite party No. 1. 2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated thus. The petitioners, nineteen in numbers, after completing the course of Madhyama in Raghunath Tol, Odagaon, which is a Sanskrit teaching institution, admitted to the privileges of Sri Jagannath Sanskrit Viswa Vidyalaya, Puri, were aomitted to the Madhyama Examination, 1990 as collegiate candidates of the toll and they were assigned B. N. High School Centre, Nayagarh. they successfully completed the examination in accordance with rules and procedure of the University under the control of the Centre Superintendent appointed by the University. Some time after the examination they were informed by the Head Pandit of Raghunath Tol, Odayaon, opp. party No. 2, that the Controller of Examinations of the University has scratched the entire Madhyama Examination of 1990 conducted' in B. N. High School, Nayagarh by notification dated 18-8-1990. Annexure-1. The said notification is under challenge in this writ application. It is contended that the order in Annexure-1 is without jurisdiction as the provisions of law contained in the Universities Act and Rules and the Statute'of the University, s. e. the Orissa Universities First Statutes, 1990 (for short, 'the Statute') have not been followed. It, is averred that Section 10(3) (d &e.) of the Act empowers the Syndicate to impose punishment for malpractice of Examinees and Control of Examinations and publication of results. Clause 214 of the Statute provides that all instances of unfair means in examinations as reported by the Centre Suparintendents/ invigilaiors/ Supervisors/ Observers/ Examiners or otherwise shall be brought before the appropriate Board of Conducting examiners and in case there is puma facie evidence of resort to unfair means the Controller of Examinations shall forthwith issue notices to the candidate concerned precisely specifying the nature of charge and calling upon the candidate to furnish his written reply. He shall also be given a personal hearing. The Examination Committee of the University shall consider the reports and explanations of the candidates and recommend to the Syndicate to impose any of the penalties provided in the Statutes. It is only the Syndicate which has power to inpo:;e the penalty. He shall also be given a personal hearing. The Examination Committee of the University shall consider the reports and explanations of the candidates and recommend to the Syndicate to impose any of the penalties provided in the Statutes. It is only the Syndicate which has power to inpo:;e the penalty. It is contended that the notification, Annexure-1, is not in accordance with the Statute as it is not a speaking order, and no reason has been assigned for the scratching of the entire examination. It is also not indicated which authority has taken the decision to scratch the examination. The Syndicate or the Vice-Chancellor, and by whom the Controller was directed to issue the notification. It is also contended that the principles of natural justice having been violated in not affording opportunity to the examinees to explain the circumstances/situation for the action taken by the University and the notification being not in accordance with the provisions of law, it is liable to be quashed. 3. Opp. party No. 1 in its counter has contended inter alia that the examination having not been conducted in accordance with the Rules the same has been cancelled/scratched as per notification vide Annexure-1 basing on the report of the Observer appointed by the University. It is averred that Sri J. Parikhit. Reader. Nayagarh College, Nayagarh was appointed as the observer by the University during the Madhyama Examination, 1990. He visited the centre, namely, B. N. High School, Nayagarh on 14-5-19S0. 15-5-1990 and 16-5-1990 and furnished his report. His report dated 20-5-1990 indicates that there was mass malpractice in the Centre and the Centre Superintendent was trying to control the copies but he was helpless. He reported that the examination was a farce in the "Centre and he collected three cement bags loaded with incriminating materials from the candidates which he handed over to the Centre Superintendent for sending to the University. The further report of the Observe? was that the general condition/ atmosphere inside and outside the examination centre was chaotic. Outsiders from the backside forcibly entered into the premises and handed over incriminating materials to the candidates. Every candidate in the Centre was in possession of incriminating materials with him, and various such other conditions prevailing in the Centre, The Observer tried to control the malpractice but the outsiders started cat-calls and passed vulgar comments or, him. Outsiders from the backside forcibly entered into the premises and handed over incriminating materials to the candidates. Every candidate in the Centre was in possession of incriminating materials with him, and various such other conditions prevailing in the Centre, The Observer tried to control the malpractice but the outsiders started cat-calls and passed vulgar comments or, him. The copy of the report of the Observer has been annexed as Annexure-A/1. On receipt of the Observer's report the same was placed before the Syndicate of the University for consideration. The Syndicate in its meeting held on 27-7-1990, on a consideration of the report of the Observer, decided to scratch the Examination Centre of B. N. High School, Nayagarh and Anr. High' School, relating to Madhyama Examination, 1990. .The decision of the Syndicate was notified by the Controller as per Annexure-1. It is averred that the Syndicate of the University is the authority under Sec 10 (3) of the Orissa Universities Act, 1989 with regard to the control of examination, publication of results, imposition of punishment for malpractice of examinees and misconduct of students. u/s 10(3)(b) the Syndicate is also vested with the powers te exercise the powers of the University not otherwise provided for. Clause 214 of the Statute prescribed the procedure dealing with the malpractice cases of individual candidates at different examinations. But so far as the question of mass malpractice is concerned, the question of individual show causes does not arise for consideration. The present Centre of examination having been scratched due to chaotic condition and adoption of indiscriminate mass malpractice in the Centre, the procedure laid down in Clause 214 of the Statute has no application. The further contention is that fourteen out of nineteen petitioners, i.e., barring the petitioner Nos. 4, 8, 10, 12 and 19, are candidates for the Madhyama Examination, 1991 commencing from 2-4-1991, and as such most of the petitioners having acquised to the: notification of the University, Annexure-1, they are estopped from challenging the same. 4. The petitioners in their rejoinder to the counter of Opp. party No. 1, have contended inter alia that the report of the Observer Annexure-A/1) does not inspire confidence as it lacks in material particulars in describing as to what actually happened on the three oates of examination. 4. The petitioners in their rejoinder to the counter of Opp. party No. 1, have contended inter alia that the report of the Observer Annexure-A/1) does not inspire confidence as it lacks in material particulars in describing as to what actually happened on the three oates of examination. It is further contend ad that before taking any decision the Syndicate was under legal obligation to refer the answer papers of the examination held on 14-6-1990 and 15-5-1990 to the Board of conducting Examiners for scrutiny and to derive satisfaction if there was really any such incident as reported by the Observer. According to them the examination of a Centre should not have been scratched without scrutiny .of answer papers in whole of some significant per cent of the same. 5. From the rival contention of the parties, the sole question falling for decision is whether the action of the Syndicate to scratch the relevant examination was legal and justified. Both the parties have referred to and relied upon the provisions of law contained in the Orissa Universities Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act') as the Rules contained in Statute. Section 10 of the Act deals with Syndicate, and Sub-section (3) thereof deals with the functions and powers exercisable by a Syndicate, Clause (d) of Sub-section (3) deals with imposition of punishment for malpractice of examinees and misconduct of students, while Clause (e) deals with control of examinations and publication of results. The provisions contained in the Act would thus go to show that the Syndicate has bean vested with wide powers in the matter of imposition of punishment for malpractice of examinees and misconduct of students. Clause 214 of the Statute deals with unfair means in examination, A perusal of the entire provision contained in Clause 214 divided into six sub clauses would go to show that it deals with unfair means resorted to by a specified number of examinees, and it does not deal with a case where mass malpractice is reported in respect of the entire Centre where examination is held. In such view of the matter, the elaborate procedure of issuing show cause to the concerned candidates specifying the nature of charge, obtaining written reply from the candidates, giving personal hearing to the candidates and other procedure contained in the Statute are not required to 'be gone into. In such view of the matter, the elaborate procedure of issuing show cause to the concerned candidates specifying the nature of charge, obtaining written reply from the candidates, giving personal hearing to the candidates and other procedure contained in the Statute are not required to 'be gone into. The Syndicate who is the ultimate authority for control of examination, publication of result and imposition of punishments for malpractice. would therefore be required to following well settled that in a case of large scale malpractice it is not necessary to serve show cause notices personalty on the. examinees concerned., it is open to the authority to take appropriate action in the matter on a fair consideration on the materials on record. From the counter of the University, opp. party No. 1, it appears that the Observer gave a report as per Annexure-A/1, dated 20-5-1990, enumerating -he details as to how mass malpractice was resorted to in the Centres and that the syndicate considered the report of the Observer in the meeting held on 27-7-1990 and decided to scratch the examination Centre of B. M. High School, Nayagarh along with another High School The decision of the Syndicate was accepted by the Controller as per Annxure-1 dated 18-8-199 scratching the entire Madhyama examination of 1990 conducted by Sanskrit University at the different Centres including the Centre where petitioners took their examination. In the light of our discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, we are inclined to hold that the action of the Syndicate is justified and legal, and that there has been no infraction of law in the matter of scratching me entire Centre. In the result, the petition being thus devoid of merits is dismissed. No costs. D.P. Mohapatra, J. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed