JUDGMENT S.P. Srivastava, J. - The petitioner appeared in the High School Examination of 1990 conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. as a private student of Adarbh Niketan Inter College, Atamanda, Bareilly. He was allotted Roll Number 1308119. His result has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 15-12-1990 and he has been further punished by debarring him from appearing in the next examination. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the quashing of the impugned order and for a direction requiring the respondent to declare his result. 2. In compliance to the order dated 8-1-1991 and 30-1-1992, the respondent has produced the record containing proceedings leading up to the passing of the impugned order and the relevant answer books for the perusal of the court. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the result of the petitioner has been cancelled on mere suspicion and no reasonable or prudent person can arrive at a conclusion as reached by the Committee on the basis whereof the impugned order has been passed. From a perusal of the counter-affidavit, it appears that although by the Centre Superintendent or the invigilator appointed by the respondent for the Centre from which the petitioner had appeared in the aforesaid examination, no complaint whatsoever bad been submitted regarding use of unfair means yet on the basis of a complaint from some citizens of district Bareilly regarding mass-copying having been done at the aforesaid centre, an enquiry was held by the Board and it was in that enquiry that after affording an opportunity to the petitioner, his result had been cancelled. 4. The stand taken by the respondent Board is that the students, who bad appeared at the centre had used either the unauthorised material supplied to them from an outside source or that material was utilised by them by way of mutual exchange. The assertions to the above effect have been made in Paragraphs 10 and 12 of the counter-affidavit. From the perusal of the record and the answer books produced by the respondent, it appears that tho only allegation made against the petitioner was that while answering question No 6 Ka and 8 Ka of the Mathematics II paper, unfair means had been utilised by the petitioner. Question No. 6 Ka carried 4 marks and question 8 Ka carried 8 marks. Question No. 6 Ka carried 4 marks and question 8 Ka carried 8 marks. The examiner, who had examined answer book of the petitioner has awarded him only 8 marks in both of the above questions, It further appears that the conclusion about the petitioner's having used unfair means was reached on the basis that he bad not done rough work. 5. The perusal of the answer book in question reveals that rough work had in fact been done so far as question No. 6 Ka was concerned. However, considering the nature of the question No. 8 Ka there could be no necessity of doing a rough work. In any case, as held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar v. Regional Office, Madhyamik Shlksha Parishad, U.P, Bareilly, reported in 1989 (1) UPLBEC 798, the very fact that a candidate does not do rough work is no ground for cancelling his result. The learned Standing Counsel could not show any rule or any provision requiring that in every case rough work must be done. 6. It can not be over looked that although the respondent has asserted that the impugned action bad been taken on the basis of mass-copying at the centre, where the petitioner had appeared, yet it had not been disputed that the candidates with Roll No. 1308184, 1308198 and 1308162 who had appeared from that centre had been declared to have passed. No distinguishing feature between them and the petitioner has been disclosed or recorded. The impugned order, thus, further stands vitiated on account of being discriminatory and arbitrary in violation of principles enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner's result had been cancelled merely on the ground of suspicion. The impugned action of the respondent therefore, is clearly without jurisdiction. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15-12-1990 is quashed. It is further directed that the petitioner's result be declared within three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the relevant authority. 9. There shall be no order as to cost. 10. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15-12-1990 is quashed. It is further directed that the petitioner's result be declared within three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the relevant authority. 9. There shall be no order as to cost. 10. A certified copy of this order may be given to the learned Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within three days,