JUDGMENT : S.P. Srivastava, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Ratnakar Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the Respondents. 2. Perused the record. 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has also produced the original record relating to the proceedings culminating in the Impugned order cancelling the Petitioner's result for B.A. Part III examination, 1994 and also debarring him from appearing in the corresponding subsequent examination of the year, 1995. 4. It appears from the record that while the Petitioner was appearing at the B.A. Part III examination in Hindi III paper on 5.7.1994, a hand-written page was found in his possession. The first answer book supplied to the Petitioner in the examination hall contains the answer to question No. 1 of the question paper only. This question was in regard to 'Nand Dularey Bajpai. It appears that before the Petitioner could answer any other question, the invigilator detected the handwritten page in his possession and the first answer book was seized along with the hand-written paper and the Petitioner was supplied a second answer book. Petitioner was given a show cause notice and submitted an explanation alleging that no hand-written page had been recovered from his possession and that he had not taken recourse to unfair means. in his explanation, he admitted that his answer book had been seized by the invigilator and some form had been got filled up by him. He further alleged that if the answer given by him to question No. 1 is compared with the material contained in the hand-written page, not a single line could be found to be similar. The report of the examiner and the endorsement made by him on the first answer book shows that he had come to the conclusion that the Petitioner had copied from the hints contained in the hand-written page. in his report, the examiner had further emphasised that the Petitioner had used unfair means and the hand-written page contained material relevant to the question No. 1. On the basis of the report of the invigilator and examiner and other materials/intrinsic evidence, the Unfair means Committee recommended for the impugned punishment which has been imposed by the competent authority accepting the recommendations. 5. On the basis of the report of the invigilator and examiner and other materials/intrinsic evidence, the Unfair means Committee recommended for the impugned punishment which has been imposed by the competent authority accepting the recommendations. 5. The only submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that while determining the quantum of punishment as provided for under the use of Unfair means Ordinance, the Respondent-authority has exceeded the Jurisdiction in imposing the punishment of debarring the Petitioner from appearing in the corresponding subsequent examination of the next academic session. 6. The relevant ordinance, i.e., Ordinance No. 1.6 is to the following effect : 1.6. The Committee referred to in Ordinance 1.4 shall award the following punishment after placing on record that it has examined all the documents referred to in Ordinance 1.5 and that it has satisfied itself regarding the facts of the matter: A (i) For possession of unauthorised material, or (ii) For leaving the examination hall without surrendering the examination script to an invigilator, or (iii) For communicating with other examinees or any one else inside or outside the examination hall. Cancellation of the results of the candidate in the examination in question. B. (i) For transcribing any part or the whole of the unauthorised material of which he was found in possession, or (ii) For intimidating or threatening any invigilator or person on duty in the examination, cancellation of the results of the candidate in the examination in question and debarment from the corresponding (and any other) subsequent examination of the next academic session. C. For manhandling or using violence against any invigilator or person on duty in the examination. Such cases, after scrutiny by the Committee referred to in Ordinance 1.4 shall be forwarded to the Proctor for necessary action. 7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has strenuously contended that the conclusion of the examiner to the effect that the Petitioner had copied from the hints contained in the hand-written page in question or that he had used the material contained therein are not sufficient for attracting the provisions of Ordinance 1.6 (B) (i) inasmuch as for that purpose, it must be established that the examinee had transcribed any part or the whole of the unauthorised material of which he was found in possession. The contention is that unless, it is established that the examinee has copied out any part or the whole of the unfair means unauthorised material of which he was found in possession, no punishment of debarment from appearing at the corresponding or next academic session could have been imposed. What is asserted is that in the present case, apart from the finding that the unauthorised material had been used while answering question No. 1 and the examinee had copied from the hints contained in the unfair means material found in his possession, nothing has been disclosed which could lead to an inference that any part or the whole of the unfair means material had been actually copied out, while answering the question No. 1. 8. The word 'transcribe' signifies to write over again or recopy in handwriting or type-writing from an original or from short-hand notes. in effect, the aforesaid word carries the expression 'to write over again'. It includes copying out in manuscript or tape (notes, short-hand, etc.). It seems to me that the word 'transcribe' as used in the aforesaid provision carries with it the intention to write down the answer to a question in the examination paper with the help of the hints or notes contained in the unfair means material/unauthorised material, seized from the possession of the examinee. There may be a case where the unfair means material is a hand-written page containing material in 'short hand' script which is transcribed in long hand while writing down the answer in the answer book supplied to the examinee. There may be yet another case where the unfair means material is in a script other than in which the answer is written but while answering the question, this material is utilised. Obviously in such cases, if the examinee writes down the answer in long hand utilising the material contained in the "unfair means material" in 'short hand' or the material in the other script is utilised while answering the question in another script, it cannot be said that the provision contained in ordinance 1.6B (i) is not attracted merely because the answer of the examinee as scribed in his answer book does not indicate the copying out of the material in the script in which it is found in the "unfair means material" recovered from his possession. It further seems to me that the real distinction between the case contemplated in the Ordinance 1.6A (i) and 1.6B (1) is that the unfair means material recovered from the possession of the examinee in the earlier case is such which, though relevant to the subject of the question paper, is not at all relevant to the questions contained in the question paper or could not have been used in any manner for answering the questions contained in the examination paper. There may be a case where the unfair means material may contain information relevant to the subject of the question paper but not at all relevant to the questions actually appearing in the question paper in that subject. in such a case, obviously the provisions contained in Ordinance 1.6A (i) will be clearly attracted. However, in a case where the unfair means material found in possession of the examinee contained the material relevant to the questions appearing in the question paper and that material has been, either in part or whole, utilised for answering the question by the examinee, in that event the provisions contained in Ordinance 1.6B (i) will stand clearly attracted. The word 'transcribe' as used in the aforesaid provision appears to have been used in its broader sense and includes not only actual verbatim reproduction of the unfair means material while giving answers by the examinee but also Includes the writing over of the question expanding or taking hints or notes, etc., contained in the unfair means material recovered from the possession of the examinee. 9. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further urged that the word 'any' occurring in Ordinance 1.6B (i) should be taken to refer to a substantial part of the unfair means material which should have been copied out verbatim while answering the questions set in the question paper. The assertion is that even if a small portion of an unfair means material which does not constitute a substantial part of the said material is transcribed verbatim, while giving answer to a question appearing in the question paper, then the aforesaid clause will not come into operation. The assertion is that even if a small portion of an unfair means material which does not constitute a substantial part of the said material is transcribed verbatim, while giving answer to a question appearing in the question paper, then the aforesaid clause will not come into operation. This contention is not at all acceptable not only because such an interpretation will necessarily require the substitution of the word 'any' as occurring in the aforesaid provision with the word "substantial" which is not permissible but also because no such construction is possible taking into account the legislative Intent underlying the provisions contained in Ordinance 1.6 under consideration and further such an interpretation will lead to absurd results and nullify the very purpose behind the provisions in question laying down for the imposition of a higher deterrent punishment. 10. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of Controller of Examinations and Others Vs. G.S. Sunder and Another, (1993) 1 SCALE 604 , in the present system of education, the system of examination is the best suited to assess the progress of the students so long as they are fairly conducted and interference by the court in every case may lead to unhappy results making the system of examination a farce. The Apex Court emphasised that that we cannot but strongly condemn copying in the examination which have grown into canker of mass copying and such unhealthy practices which are like poisonous weeds in the field of education must be rooted out in order that the innocents and intelligent students are not affected. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances borne out from the record, I do not find the present case to be a fit one for the intervention of the equity. 12. No Justifiable ground is made out for any interference by this Court, while exercising the extraordinary Jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.