Judgment S.H.S.Abidi, J. 1. Arun Kumar Sah. Sajesh Kumar Lal and Shailendra Kumar have filed this writ application for a direction to the respondents not to cancel the 6th paper of Examination of LLB, Part 111 which was held on 14-3-1992 at Chhotanagpur Law College, Ranchi. It has also been prayed that Annexure 1, being the Notification issued by the Respondent No. 2, may be quashed and further the respondents may be directed to publish the result. 2. The petitioners have alleged that they were the student of Chhotangapur Law College, Ranchi for the Sessions 1989-90 of the Part IIIrd L.L.B, Their examination was held in the month of March, 1992. It was on 14-3-1992 that the Vice-Chancellor (Respondent No. 2) visited the examination centre and caught 11 candidates involved in unfair means. It was on 23-7-1992 that the examination of such papers has been cancelled and the copy of notification in respect thereof has been filed as Annexure. 1. 3. On 14-8-1992, a Bench of this Court ordered to put up this case on 25-8-1992 to enable the Learned Counsel, appearing for the respondent University, to file counter-affidavit, disclosing therein, the sources, whereby, the authorities concerned have come to a conclusion to cancel the examination of a particular centere. The record of C.W.J.C No. 1147 of 1992 (R) disposed of on 7-5-1992 was also ordered to be kept on the record The order of this Court dated 31-8-1992 shows that by an interim order dated 18-8-1992 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 1959 of 1992 (R) this Court had directed the Vice-Chaaceller respondent No. 2 to get the matter finally examined and report the matter to this Court by way of supplementary affidavit fixing time limit of one month and so, the Court did not feel necessary to pass any interim order further. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by one Kashi Nath Gope, the Controller of Examination, Ranchi University (Respondent No. 4) on his own behalf and also on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 in which it has been said that the Vice-Chancellor of Ranchi University on receipt of information that large scale use of unfair means in the I LB examination at the CN Law College, Ranchi Centre was being practised, made a surprise visit of the exmination center on 14-3-1992. He witnessed massive use of unfair means in examination. He witnessed massive use of unfair means in examination. The matter was also placed in the Examination Board meeting. The copy of the report of the Vice-Chancellor dated 15-3-1992 has been filed as Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. He has also said that as to whether the petitioners had appeared or not in the said examination cannot be accepted without any documentary proof. Certain matters were still being enquired in view of the order dated 7-5-1992 (Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit) passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1147 of 1992 (R). As regards the enquiries and action with regard to the student/examinees of CN. Law College, Ranchi, could not be completed due to non-co-operation of the Principal of the college. As such, a Committee was constituted on 28-7-1992 by the Vice-Chancellor of Ranchi University to enquire into the matter about the irregularities and allegations. The result of the examination could be published only after the enquiries are completed. In another C.W.J.C. No. 1959 of 1992 (R) this Court had directed by an order dated 18-8-1992 (Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit) to get the matter finally examined within a month. It was also said that on 14-3-1992 in CN. Law College, Ranchi Centre where the examinatinn of Paper VI of L.L.B. Part III was going on, the Vice-Chancellor made a surprise Visit and found massive use of un-fair means in the examination and it was wrong to say that only 11 examinees were involved and were caught or were suspended. It was further said that large scale unfair means were used in the examination which could also be proved if the answer books of the examinees are produced before this Court and for these reasons the examination has been cancelled. The Vice-Chancellor being the head of the University, himself found the massive use of unfair means in the examination. 5. When the matter was taken up on 30-9-1992, this Court passed an order for the adjournment of the case till 19-10-1992 to enable the University and its authorities to file a supplementary affidavit, categorically stating the facts as to whether the Vice-Cbancellor had visited all the premises in which the examination in question was going on or had visited only one or two rooms and found the massive use of unfair means. In compliance of the Courts orders dated 30-9-1992, Respondent No, 4, the Controller of Examination filed his supplementary counter-affidavit saying that Prof. Amar Kumar Singh, the then Vice-Chancellor of Ranchi University was contacted and he has reported to the present Vice-Chancellor of the said University through his letter dated 14-10-1992 that he had gone to all the rooms/halls of the examination Centre where the Examination was being held on 14-3-1992 and in every room/hall he witnessed massive use of unfair means by the examinees and books, notes etc., were being freely used by the examinees. A copy of the said letter dated 14-10-1992 has been filed as Annexure-D to the supplementary counter-affidavit. Respondent No. 4 has further said that from the aforesaid letter, it is evident that there was large scale use of unfair means in the L.L.B. examination at the C.N. College Centre on 14-3-1992 and that in pursuance of the Courts order dated 30-9-1992, the re-examination of Paper-VI of L.L.B. Part-III scheduled to be held on 18-10-1992 has been postponed. 6. Today, when the case was taken up for hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that only 11 candidates were caught and Ors. were not found using unfair means. He has also contended that no opportunity for hearing has been given to the 11 persons who were said to had been caught and so, there is denial of priniciples of natural justice. He has also referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad V/s. Ghanshyam Das Gupta and Ors. -- , in support of his contention. 7. learned Counsel for the Ranchi University has referred and relied upon two Annexures, A and B being the report and letter of the then Vice Chancellor Prof. Amar Kumar Singh, He has also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of the Bihar School Examination Board V/s. Subhas Chandra Sinha and Ors. AIR 1979 SC 1269, where it has been said that adoption of unfair means by vast majority of examinees at particular center-School Examination Board cancelling examination as a whole at that centre-opportunity to all the candidate to represent their cases was not necessary before action was taken. 8. AIR 1979 SC 1269, where it has been said that adoption of unfair means by vast majority of examinees at particular center-School Examination Board cancelling examination as a whole at that centre-opportunity to all the candidate to represent their cases was not necessary before action was taken. 8. Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit is a report of the Vice-Chancellor dated 15th March, 1992 wherein he has said that on 14-3-1992 he had witnessed a massive use of unfair means and he had taken answer books of the some examinees who were using books, note etc., which were also seized. He had obtained the signatures of the Superintendent of the Centre on these papers and he has further said that no evaluation of answer books of any paper was ordered to be made till the EB takes a decision on the matter. Annexure-D is a letter from the then Vice-Chancellor Prof. Amar Kumar Singh to the present Vice Chancellor, Prof. K.K. Nag saying that he had made a surprise visit of C.N. Law College, Ranchi Centre on 14-3-1992 and had gone to all the room/halls of the centre where examination was going on and in every room/hall he witnessed massive unfair means by all the examinees. Books, notes etc., were being freely used by the examinees and as it was not possible to seize all he answer books and the notes, books etc, being used by the examinees, the seized the answer books of some of the examinees along with the notes, books being used, from different rooms. He has also said that the large scale use of unfair means in the examination wav going on in connivance with the Centre Suprintendent and the Invigilators. 9. Thus, from these two Annexures A and D, it is quite clear that massive copying was being done by the examinees in connivance with the Centre Superintendent and the Invigilators and the Vice-Chancellor seized 11 copies as it was not possible to seize alt the answer books, notes books etc., in the hall. It is a question of fact that the Vice-Chancellor himself had seen the massive copying and it was not a case of one or few persons adopting the unfair means in the examination hall but it was the conduct of all the examinees at the Centre in all the halls and rooms. It is a question of fact that the Vice-Chancellor himself had seen the massive copying and it was not a case of one or few persons adopting the unfair means in the examination hall but it was the conduct of all the examinees at the Centre in all the halls and rooms. The Supreme Court, in the case of The Bihar School Examination Board V/s. Subhas Chandra (supra) wherein the decision of Ghanshyam Das Gupta (supra) referred and relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners has b;en considered, has observed at page 1272 (Paras 13 and 14) as follows : 13: This is not a case of any particular individual who is being charged with adoption of unfair means but of the conduct of all the examinees or at least a vast majority of them at a particular centre. If it is not a question of charging any one individually with unfair means but to condemn the examination as ineffective for the purpose it was held, must the Board give an opportunity to all the candidates to represent, their cases? We think not. It was not necessary for the Board to give an opportunity to the candidates if the examinations as a whole were being cancelled. The Board had not charged any one with unfair means so that he could claim to defend himself. The examination was vitiated by adoption of unfair means on a mass scale. In these circumstances it would be wrong to insist that the Board must hold a detailed inquiry into the matter and examine each individual case to satisfy itself which of the candidates had not adopted unfair means. The examination as a whole had to go. Para-14: Reliance was placed upon Ghanshyam Das Guptas case, 1962 Supp (3) SCR 36; AIR 1962 SC 1110 , to which we referred earlier. There the examination results of three candidates were cancelled and this Court held that they should have received an opportunity of explaining their conduct. It was also said that even if the inquiry involved a large number of persons the Committee should frame proper regulations for the conduct of such inquiries but not deny the opportunity. We do not think that that case has any application. It was also said that even if the inquiry involved a large number of persons the Committee should frame proper regulations for the conduct of such inquiries but not deny the opportunity. We do not think that that case has any application. Surely it was not intended that where the examination as a whole was vitiated, say by leakage of papers or by destruction of some of the answer books or by discovery of unfair means practised on a vast scale that an inquiry would be made giving a chance to every one appearing at that examination to have his say. What the Court intended to lay down was that if any particular person was to be proceeded against, he must have a proper chance to defend himself and this did not obviate the necessity of giving an opportunity even though the number of persons proceeded against was large. The Court was then not considering the right of an examining body to cancel its own examination when it was satisfied that the examination was not properly conducted or that in the conduct of the examination the majority of the examinees had not conducted themselves as they should have. To make such decisions depend upon a full-fledged judicial inquity would hold up the functioning of such autonomous bodies as Universities and School Board. While we do not wish to whittle down the requirements of natural justice and fair play in cases where such requirement may be said to arise, we do not want that this Court should be understood as having stated that an inquiry with a right to representation must always precede in every case, however different. The universities are responsible for their standards and the conduct of examinations. The essence of the examinations is that worth of every person is appraised without any assistance from an outside source. If at a centre the whole body of students receive assistance and manage to secure success in the neighbourhood of 100% when others at other centres are sucessful only at an average of 50%, it is obvious that the University or the Board must do something in the matter. It cannot hold a detailed quasi-judicial inquiry with a right to its alumni to plead and lead evidence etc., before the results are withheld or the examinations cancelled. It cannot hold a detailed quasi-judicial inquiry with a right to its alumni to plead and lead evidence etc., before the results are withheld or the examinations cancelled. If there is sufficient material on which it can be demonstrated that the University was right in its conclusion that the examinations ought to be cancelled then academic standards require that the Universitys appreciation of the problem must be respected. It would not do for the Court to say that you should have examined all the candidates or even their representatives with a view to ascertaining whether they had received assistance or not. To do this would encourage indiscipline if not also perjury. 10. Thus, following these observations of their Lordships and the factual aspect that the Vice-Chancellor himself has found massive and large scale copying in all the rooms and halls of the Center, he visited and that he was also of the opinion that the Centre Superintendant and the Invigilators were in connivance with the examinees, in our opinion, the cancellation of the entire results and the examinations was justified and well within jurisdiction and so, the impugned notification cannot be held to be bad. Accordingly this writ application has got no force and as such, it is dismissed. In the end, we cannot refrain from accepting the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the respondents concerned should hold the examination in accordance with law at an early date and try to declare the results as soon as possible to save the further loss of precious time of the students.