PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) NON-DECLARATION of results of annual Inter Law Examination and Final Law Examination has brought petitioner before this Court. Petitioner appeared as a candidate at the annual Inter Law Examination conducted by Utkal University (hereinafter referred to as 'university') in May, 1992. Subsequently, he appeared at the annual Final Examination held in April, 1993. His results were not declared and were withheld. When petitioner met the functionaries of University, he was told that his answer script in respect of Paper IV of Inter Law Examination was not available and therefore, results were not published. He made an application to the Controller of Examinations who by letter dated 24-4-1994, requested the Principal of Gangadhar Mohapatra Law College, Puri to furnish copy of memo form sent to the University by the Centre Superintendent containing roll numbers of candidates whose answer papers had been sent to the University authorities for valuation and the attendance sheet of the candidates in respect of the aforesaid examination. Those documents were sent to the Principal on 7-5-1994. They clearly indicated that petitioner had taken examination in the concerned paper. ( 2 ) FROM the counter affidavit, we find that petitioner's results were withheld because answer script relating to paper-IV was missing and in its absence results cannot be declared. It is stated that the Examination Committee in its resolution dated 5-11-1994 recommended that since all possible methods have been adopted and failed, re-examination should be taken for the candidates in the concerned papers. Syndicate of the University approved the said recommendation on 17-11-1994. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioner relied on a decision of this Court in Ajit Kumar Baral v. Utkal University, (1990) 1 OLR 554: ( AIR 1990 Ori 174 ) to highlight that stand of University is inconsistent. In the said case it has been stated that proportionate quotient method, commonly known as 'pq' method, was applied by the University in case any answer paper of the examinee is lost. In other cases they do not follow the stand and rely in the absence of any provision for application of PQ methodd to rule out its application Reference is made to Abantika Khadiratna v. State of Orissa in OJC No. 5561 of 1994, disposed of on 20-3-1995. Mr. In other cases they do not follow the stand and rely in the absence of any provision for application of PQ methodd to rule out its application Reference is made to Abantika Khadiratna v. State of Orissa in OJC No. 5561 of 1994, disposed of on 20-3-1995. Mr. Swain appearing for the University submits that there is no prescription for application of PQ method either in the University Statutes or Regulation and therefore, PQ method cannot be applied in all the cases and therefore petitioner should appear again in the examination where answer paper is lost. ( 4 ) IT is true that there is no prescription for application of PQ method in the Statutes or Regulation. But there must exist reasons for non-application of PQ method in a particular case, when it is applied in another case. Resolution of the Examination Committee is to the effect that since all possible attempts were made to trace out answer paper. Candidates should be required to take up reexamination. Can it be said that in other cases, possible attempts were not taken to trace out papers ? The reason indicated is utterly fallacious. It is the bounden duty of the University to keep the answer scripts in safe custody and if any answer paper, which is a very valuable material so far as an examinee is concerned is lost, it cannot deal with matter lightly and ask a candidate to take re-examination in a routine manner. When PQ method is available to be applied and in some cases it is done, compelling reasons must exist to rule out its application in a particular case. As was observed by this Court in Ajit Kumar Baral's case, ( AIR 1990 Ori 174 ) (supra), University must prescribe some concrete procedure for dealing with cases of missing answer scripts. According to the University, matter is taken up by the Examination Committee and Syndicate and under orders of the Vice-Chancellor, PQ method is adopted. It is submitted that the matter is discretionary and no interference is called for. Discretion must be exercised honestly and in the spirit of the Statute. It is not to be arbitrary, vague and fanciful but legal and regular, to be exercised not capriciously but on judicial grounds and for substantial reasons. It must not be arbitrary. It is submitted that the matter is discretionary and no interference is called for. Discretion must be exercised honestly and in the spirit of the Statute. It is not to be arbitrary, vague and fanciful but legal and regular, to be exercised not capriciously but on judicial grounds and for substantial reasons. It must not be arbitrary. The very term itself stands unsupported by circumstances imports the exercise of judgment, wisdom and skill as contradistinguished from unthinking folly heady violence or rash injustice. Discretion is to discern between right and wrong, and whoever has power to act at discretion, is bound by the rule of reason and law. It must be exercised within the limit, to which an honest man, competent to the discharge of his ought to confine himself. It must be a result of judicial thinking. ( 5 ) IN the circumstances, we direct the University to place the matter before the Vice-Chancellor to decide whether PQ method is to be applied in petitioner's case. Decision by Vice-Chancellor shall be taken considering observations made by this Court in Ajit Kumar Baral's case (supra) and Abantika Khadiratna's case (supra ). Necessary action in the matter be taken within six weeks. In case Vice-Chancellor and result be indicated to the petitioner. The writ application is disposed of accordingly. No costs. 5a. P. C. NAIK, J. : -. The facts involved in this petition, to say the least, disclose the casual attitude of the University to the plight of students whose answer scripts are lost due to negligence of the University. A student appears in an examination, an answer script is lost so his result is not declared. The University authorities do not think it proper to apply the P. Q. method, which can be applied to such cases but resolves that the candidate whose answer script is lost should take a re-examination in the concerned papers for enabling the University to declare his results. ( 6 ) THE University authorities cannot think it proper to make an inquiry about the missing answer scripts and to take action against those responsible for the loss. By requiring the candidates to take a re-examination it absolves itself from all responsibilities forgetting that the candidate is not to be blamed nor is he in any way responsible for loss of his answer script. By requiring the candidates to take a re-examination it absolves itself from all responsibilities forgetting that the candidate is not to be blamed nor is he in any way responsible for loss of his answer script. Thus in a way the candidate is penalised for the negligence of the University. To my mind, the attitude of the University needs no commendation. ( 7 ) THOUGH there is no provision either in the statutes or the Regulations of the University there is a method known as the proportionate quotient (PQ) method which can be applied with the permission of the Vice-Chancellor to declare the results of the candidates in such a situation. In the instant case, however, the University authorities do not think it proper to apply the method. Why it did not adopt this method though it has been applied in some cases remains unanswered. It is stated that application of the P. Q. method is discretionary and hence cannot be enforced. To be, the attitude of the University seems most unfair. It is no doubt true that application of the P. Q. method is at the discretion of the Vice-Chancellor but when it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authorities, that something is to be done according to rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion. It is not to be arbitrary, vague and fanciful but must be exercised within the limit, to which an honest man, competent to the discharge of his office, ought to confine himself. The very word "discretion" signifies exercise of judgment, skill, or wisdom as distinguished from folly, unthinking or haste; evidently therefore a discretion cannot be arbitrary. As applied to public officers, discretion connotes action taken in the light of reason as applied to all facts and with view to rights of all parties to action, while having regard for what is right and equitable under all circumstances. Hence exercise of discretion ought not to be the imse dixit of the Authority but must be the result of judicial thinking. Hence exercise of discretion ought not to be the imse dixit of the Authority but must be the result of judicial thinking. Viewed in this light, it is really difficult to understand why, when discretion to apply the PQ method is adopted in the case of A, (though on earlier occasion), it is not thought proper to apply it in the case of B, when in both cases facts are similar, answer scripts were lost by the University. In 'such a situation, a doubt arises whether the refusal to exercise discretion is fair or the exercise of discretion in favour of a earlier was for other reasons. Under the circumstances, the Vice-Chancellor would do well to consider the petitioner's case in the light of the earlier decisions keeping in mind the observations made above. Order accordingly.