Judgment Nagendra Rai, J. 1. All these writ applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Each of the three writ applications has been filed by the single petitioner. By order dated 30-8-1996, one Arun Kumar was added as petitioner No.2 in C. W. J. C. No.7779 of 1996. The petitioners have filed the present applications for cancellation of the result of the Combined Entrance engineering Examination (in short c. E. E. E. ), 1996, on the ground of manipulation and use of unfairmeans in the examination, and also for re-evaluation of their answer-sheets and on re-evaluation to declare them as successful candidates. 3. Before proceeding to state the respective cases of the petitioners and the stands taken by the respondents it would be appropriate to refer at this stage the relevant provisions and the rules for conducting the C. E. E. Examination and the relevant dates on which the different formalities including the examination have been conducted. The examination is conducted by the state of Bihar (Department of Science and Technology) for admission to different Engineering Colleges in the State of Bihar and for nomination of the candidates to different Regional Engineering Colleges outside State to the extent of the quota fixed for the State. On the 7th of May, 1991, the State Government framed rule known as Combined Engineering Entrance Examination Rule, 1991, which came into force from the 1st of February, 1991. A copy of the said rule has been annexed as Annexure-5 by the writ petitioners. Chapter 6 provides that a combined Entrance Engineering examination Committee has to be constituted consisting of six members. The five members will be the Principal of engineering Colleges, out of whom one would be the Convenor. The sixth member will be a representative of the department of Science and Technology. Chapter 9 deals with the examination and paragraph 9.1.1. thereof provides that the aforesaid Committee shall be responsible for the conduct of the examination. The confidential works, regarding setting of papers, printing and packeting will be done by the Convenor. Paragraph 9.4.1 provides that there will be double codings of the answer-sheets. The first coding will be done by the members of the Committee, excluding the Convenor. The second coding will be done by a Committee of three senior professors of the Engineering Colleges to be nominated/selected by the Convenor. Paragraph 9.4.1 provides that there will be double codings of the answer-sheets. The first coding will be done by the members of the Committee, excluding the Convenor. The second coding will be done by a Committee of three senior professors of the Engineering Colleges to be nominated/selected by the Convenor. In 1993, the State of Bihar in the department of Science and Technology issued a resolution on 5-5-1993, by which it framed a Rule known as "in the manner of allocation of the conduct of the Entrance Examination". According to the said resolution, the Committee of six members, as mentioned in the resolution shall consist of the Principal of M. I. T. , Muzaffarpur, Principal of the b. C. I. , Bhagalpur, Director of B. I. T. , sindri, the Principal of B. C. . I. , Patna, the principal of R. I. T. , Jamshedpur and the joint Director as representative of the head Office. The Convenor of the committee will be the Principal of m. I. T. , Muzaffarpur, the Principal of b. C. I. , Bhagalpur and the Director, b. I. T. , Sindri, in rotation. A copy of the said resolution has been annexed as An-nexure A/r-1 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.1. 4. The Government selected three engineering Colleges, namely, the b. I. T. , Sindri, B. C. . I. , Bhagalpur and m. I. T. , Muzaffarpur, for conduct of the examination and according to the resolution of 1993, the Principals of the said Colleges have to be made Convenor as the examination was to be conducted in the said Institute according to rotation. In 1996, it was the turn of m. I. T. , Muzaffarpur, to conduct the examination and the Principal of the College was to be made the Convenor according to the rules. It appears that on the 20th of April, 1996, Dr. Kamesh-war Prasad, Principal of the said College was appointed as Convenor by the government (Annexure B/r-1 ). On 21-4-1996, Dr. Kameshwar Prasad informed the Director, Science and technology that he was retiring on 30-6-1996, so for smooth functioning of the competitive examination, a post of co-Convenor should be created and another person should be appointed as co-Convenor. He recommended the name of Dr. R. C. Das vikal, Respondent No.3 of C. W. J. C. No.7666 of 1996 for his appointment as co-Convenor and dr. He recommended the name of Dr. R. C. Das vikal, Respondent No.3 of C. W. J. C. No.7666 of 1996 for his appointment as co-Convenor and dr. Ashok Kumar Sinha as Member-Secretary. Thereafter, Dr. R. C. Das vikal was appointed as co-Convenor and Dr. A. K. Sinha as Member-Secretary. On 29-4-1996, the first meeting of the Committee was held. It was attended by the Principals of the aforesaid Colleges, including the Principal of the M. I. T. , Muzaffarpur and co-Convenor and they fixed the dates for receiving applications as well as for conducting examination. The meeting fixed 31.5.1996 as the last date for accepting the forms and 30-6-1996 as the date of the examination. Accordingly, notice was issued inviting applications from the desirous candidates. They applied for their admission. The examination was held on 30-6-1996 and after the codings of the answer-books, the same were sent for evaluation. After evaluation, decoding was done and the result was published on the Notice Board of the M. I. T. , Muzaffarpur, on 31-7-1996 and in the News-papers on 2-8-1996. 5. The case of the petitioners, except the newly added petitioner, is that they have good academic records and they did very well in the examination, but when the result was published, they did not find their names in the list of successful candidates and, thereafter, they made an enquiry and found that the bungling at a large scale was done in the examination and the Minister, science and Technology in connivance with the co-Convenor Dr. R. C. Das vikal, who was Guide for his Ph. D. , manipulated the things to advance the cause of the candidates numbering about 200 (300-600) for extraneous consideration. In this connection, it is asserted by them that the answers were copied out from the memorandum of instruction-sheets given to the examiners at the time of evaluation. This will be proved by the fact that the answers given by the favoured candidates tallied with the model answers prepared by the question setters for the purposes of evaluation work. Even misprints in the model answers prepared by the question-setters have been copied down in the answer-books without making any correction. This will be proved by the fact that the answers given by the favoured candidates tallied with the model answers prepared by the question setters for the purposes of evaluation work. Even misprints in the model answers prepared by the question-setters have been copied down in the answer-books without making any correction. The said model answers have been copied out in the answer-scripts, which clearly shows that model answers were supplied to the examinees and they have copied down all those misprints on their respective answer-books without making any correction. They also came to learn that the model answers were supplied to the examinees either before the examination or after the examination and before the evaluation of the answer-sheets. They have also alleged that these bunglings were done by the co-Convenor in connivance with the Minister, Science and technology Department. Answer-sheets were taken away from the custody of the co-Convenor and, thereafter, the bunglings were done. They have also come to know that the rough works done by the examinees with regard to these answer scripts, which tallied with the memorandum of instructions, were not sufficient to show that the examinees have done their problems themselves. They have also asserted that the irregularities in the examination were also raised on the floor of the Assembly as well as on the floor of the Bihar legislative Council and the Government accepted the irregularity and assured that a Committee would be constituted to enquire into the matter. The concerned Minister stated that 31 such answer-sheets were cancelled. They have also stated that without any provision for appointment of co-Convenor, the Minister concerned appointed his Guide, namely, Dr. R. C. Das vikal as the co-Convenor so that the manipulation could be easily done at Muzaffarpur, which is the home town of the Minister. In the supplementary affidavit -filed by the petitioner in c. W. J. C. No.7666 of 1996, it is stated that the sister of the daughter-in-law i. e. the wife of only son of said Dr. Vikal, who is resident of Muzaffarpur town, was a candidate for the C. E. E. Examina-tion, 1996. Even then, he did not dis-as-sociate from the examination and worked as co-Convenor. 6. Separate counter-affidavits were filed on behalf of respondent No.1 state, the convenor-respondent No.2, the co-Convenor-respondent No.3 and the Minister of Science and Technology-Respondent No.4. Vikal, who is resident of Muzaffarpur town, was a candidate for the C. E. E. Examina-tion, 1996. Even then, he did not dis-as-sociate from the examination and worked as co-Convenor. 6. Separate counter-affidavits were filed on behalf of respondent No.1 state, the convenor-respondent No.2, the co-Convenor-respondent No.3 and the Minister of Science and Technology-Respondent No.4. The stand of the state in the counter-affidavit is that according to the Rules and Regulation, the Principal of M. I. T. , Muzaffarpur, namely, Dr. K. Prasad, was made Convenor vide memo dated 20-4-1996 (An-nexure-B/r-1 ). On 21-4-1996, Dr. K. Prasad informed the Director, Science and Technology that since he was retiring on 30-6-1996, for the smooth functioning of the aforesaid competitive examination, a co-Convenor should be appointed and he recommended the name of Dr. R. C. Das vikal for the said purpose and requested that after his retirement, Dr. vikal would automatically become the convenor. He also stated in the said letter that the confidential work would be done by the co-Convenor and he would keep himself aloof from the conduct of the examination. He also recommended for appointment of one Dr. AK. Sinha as member-Secretary. Copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure-C/r-1. The Government having accepted the proposal appointed Dr. R. C. Das vikal as the co-Convenor and one Dr. AK. Sinha as the Member-Secretary vide annexure D/r-1. On 30-6-1996, Dr. K. Prasad handed over the charge of the principal to Dr. K. K. Sinha and the charge of convenor to Dr. R. C. Das vikal vide Annexure E/r-1. Under the rules, the Principal has to be nominated as convenor and as such after retirement of Dr. K. Prasad, the government by letter dated 23-7-1996 appointed the Principal Incharge of m. I. T, Muzaffarpur, as convenor. It is stated that Dr. R. C. Das vikal was made co-Convenor in view of the exigency of the situation though there was no provision therefor. It is also asserted that the Principal Incharge Dr. K. K. Sinha on 20-7-1996 informed that he was unable to discharge duties of Incharge Principal and he should be relieved immediately vide Annexure f/r-1. Thereafter, Dr. S. C. Sinha took charge of the Principal Incharge vide notification dated 31-7-19% (Annexure h/r-1 ). Thus, the State Government was justified in appointing Dr. vikas as co-Convenor. 7. In his counter-affidavit, Dr. K. K. Sinha on 20-7-1996 informed that he was unable to discharge duties of Incharge Principal and he should be relieved immediately vide Annexure f/r-1. Thereafter, Dr. S. C. Sinha took charge of the Principal Incharge vide notification dated 31-7-19% (Annexure h/r-1 ). Thus, the State Government was justified in appointing Dr. vikas as co-Convenor. 7. In his counter-affidavit, Dr. K. Prasad, respondent No.2 has stated that after his appointment as convenor by the State Government, he requested the government to appoint another Professor, namely, Dr. R. C. Das vikal as co-Convenor and after his retirement, he might be allowed to work as convenor. The said proposal was approved by the state Government by order dated 27-4-19%. The first meeting of the Members of the Committee was held on 29-4-19%, which was attended by him as well as the Principals of other Colleges. Thereafter, a decision was taken for inviting applications and conducting examination. Four Zonal Superintendents were appointed and they were requested to submit the list of Centres, where examination was to be conducted. The centres were selected. Three sets of question papers were prepared for each subject by the paper setters and out of them, one was selected. Thereafter, question papers and answer-books were sent to the Zonal Superintendents, who in their turn, sent the same to the centre Superintendents of their zone. On 30-6-1996, the examination was conducted in a proper manner. The District magistrates and the Police Superintendents were informed and under their supervision, the examination was held. Thereafter, he superannuated and he did not know regarding the publication of the result. 8. Respondent No.3, the co-Convenor, namely, Dr. R. C. Das vikal has filed his counter-affidavit on 16-8-1996 and his stand as per the counter-affidavit and other affidavits filed by him from time to time is that he was appointed co-Convenor by the State government and, thereafter, he took charge of the matter and his stand, so far as the setting of the question-papers and sending the answer-books is the same as that of respondent No.2. He has further stated that on 2-7-1996, the answer-books were received from all the centres. The members of the Committee assembled at Muzaffarpur, except the convenor. The answer-sheets in equal number were given to the Members of the Committee. The first Code number in the answer-books was given by the Members of the Committee. He has further stated that on 2-7-1996, the answer-books were received from all the centres. The members of the Committee assembled at Muzaffarpur, except the convenor. The answer-sheets in equal number were given to the Members of the Committee. The first Code number in the answer-books was given by the Members of the Committee. After completion of all the formalities, the entire answer-books were handed over to respondent No.3 in first code. The detached portion of first page of answer book used to be kept by the principal/member who used to give first code in his own custody. The co-Convenor, thereafter, used to give another code in the answer book at two places. The first portion used to be detached again and, thereafter, the answer-sheets were sent to the examiners for evaluation. It is stated that the members of the committee, who used to give the 1st code number, were not aware regarding the second code and similarly the co-Convenor, who used to affix second code has no knowledge about the roll numbers and names of the candidates. The examiners after evaluation of the answer-books prepared the marks-foil giving second code number and the actual marks obtained by the candidates. Marks-foils used to be prepared in three copies. They were sent to him in sealed cover. The answer-books were kept in strong-room. Out of the three marks-foils, he kept one with himself and another two copies were sent to the tabulators. The Tabulators tabulated the result in second code separately and the same used to be compared. Thereafter, the result was prepared in the second code itself. After preparation of the result, the members of the Committe tee were again invited and they decoded the marks-foils in first code and rol numbers of the candidates concerned the final result, thereafter, as per the merit list was prepared and publishec taking into consideration the reserva tion law. The result was announced or the Notice Board of the M. I. T. , Muzaf farpur on 31-7-1996 and was also pub lished in three news-papers on 2-8-1996 he has admitted that Respondent Shr brij Behari Prasad, Science and Tech nology Minister, was registered for Ph d. in the year 1992 under his guidanci as well as Dr. J. K. Rai and at that time, he was not Minister of the said Department. J. K. Rai and at that time, he was not Minister of the said Department. In fact, he became Minister of the said Department in the year 1995. He has denied the allegations that the answer-books were taken to the house of the Minister and manipulations were done there as alleged by the petitioners. He has also denied the allegations that the answers were copied out from the memorandum of instructions. According to him, no memorandum of instructions was prepared for the examiners nor a single examiner has reported to him regarding the unfairmeans while evaluating the answer-books. The examiners used to evaluate as per answers given in the answer-books. He did not even see the answer-sheets and the result prepared on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates. He has specifically stated that no answer or model answers were prepared and supplied to the examiners. Respondent No.3 in his affidavit which was filed in the shape of rejoinder to the reply of the counter-affidavit. On behalf of the petitioners, stated that the marriage of his son was not performed with his consent. That was a love marriage and he had no concern with the said marriage and he was not aware that the sister of his daughter-in-law was appearing in the examination. The petitioners controverted the aforesaid stand of respondent No.2 and filed the invitation card annexed as Annexure 14 issued on behalf of respondent No.3 and his wife to show that the co-Convenor-respondent no.3 and his wife have got printed the invitation card on the occasion of marriage of their son with Preeti Priyadar-shini. Thereafter, respondent No.3 filed an affidavit denying that the aforesaid invitation card was printed at his instance. According to him, his son might have got the same printed or distributed. 9. The Minister, Shri Brij Behari prasad, Respondent No.4, in his counter-affidavit filed on 7-10-1996 has admitted that the co-Convenor Dr. R. C.6as vikal was one of his guides and he obtained Ph. D. under him in 1996. However, he has denied other allegations made in the writ petition against him. 10. This court on 12-8-1996, after hearing the parties directed the co-Convenor to produce the answer-sheets of 100 successful candidates of general category from serial Nos.1 to 100 and 50 successful candidates of the each of the reserved categories from the merit list. However, he has denied other allegations made in the writ petition against him. 10. This court on 12-8-1996, after hearing the parties directed the co-Convenor to produce the answer-sheets of 100 successful candidates of general category from serial Nos.1 to 100 and 50 successful candidates of the each of the reserved categories from the merit list. He was also directed to produce the answer-sheets of the petitioners. Thereafter, counter-affidavits, as stated above on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3, were filed and after hearing the parties, by order dated 20-8-1996, this court came to the conclusion that a Committee be constituted to re-evaluate the answer-sheets of the successful candidates as, prima facie, it appeared that some of the answers given by some of the successful candidates are verbatim reproduction from the memorandum of model answers of the Physics subsequently annexed with the writ applications. The co-Convenor was directed to produce the remaining answer sheets of the successful candidates as well as 100 answer-sheets of unsuccessful candidates of each category by 30-8-1996, on which date the court would consider the question of constituting a Committee. This court also passed an interim order that all admissions, already made or if any to be made, would be subject to the result of the cases. In accordance with that, the answer-books numbering 4251 of the successful and unsuccessful candidates were produced. Thus, total number of copies, that were produced before this court, is 5286. 11. The assertion of the petitioners that the memorandum of answers was prepared and the same was given to the examiners at the time of evaluation, was denied by the co-Convenor and he specifically stated that no memorandum of answers was prepared and supplied to the examiners. The petitioners have annexed the so-called memorandum of answers as annexure and in reply to the aforesaid stand of the co-Convenor, they reiterated the earlier stand. After hearing the parties, the court decided to examine the question-setters and examiners with a view to verify as to whether any memorandum of answers was prepared or not either by the paper setters or the examiners. The paper setters and the examiners were contacted by a senior Judicial Officer of the District. After hearing the parties, the court decided to examine the question-setters and examiners with a view to verify as to whether any memorandum of answers was prepared or not either by the paper setters or the examiners. The paper setters and the examiners were contacted by a senior Judicial Officer of the District. Some of them agreed to give statements but they stated that their statements should be recorded in camera on the ground that in case their names are exposed, there would be danger to their lives. Thereafter, on 25-9-1996, with the consent of the parties, six examiners and one paper setter were examined by the court in-camera in presence of the counsels and their statements were kept in a sealed cover. After perusal of their statements, it was found that it was necessary to preserve documents concerning examination, kept in the strong-room and, accordingly, on 27-9-1996, this court passed an order that a seal be put on the lock of the strong-room and, accordingly, the same was done. Some of the examiners in their statements stated that the model answers were supplied to them at the time of evaluation and, thereafter, the counsel appearing for the co-Convenor stated that the model answers prepared by the Head Examiner might be kept in the record room in boxes. Thereafter, this court issued following directions on 1-10-1996:. " (i) The co-Convenor is directed to file an affidavit giving the details of the total number of copies used and unused centre-wise. The co-Convenor is directed to contact the Registrar, Incharge, Civil courts, Muzaffarpur, on 3-10-96 who after opening the lock in presence of the co-Convenor will collect the documents namely the memorandum of answers kept in the box, the papers showing the details of the answer-books prepared, the names, addresses, roll numbers and 2nd code number of the successful candidates and send the same under sealed cover under a proper escort to be provided by the S. R, muzaffarpur, to this Court on 4th Oct. , 1996. (ii) Certain allegations have been made against Minister, respondent No.4, I am of the view that it is proper that he should appear in Court and file an affidavit if advised. Mr. Ganesh Pd. Singh states that no notice is required to be sent on him as he will inform the respondent No.4 who will put his appearance in the Court on Monday (7-10-1996 ). Mr. Ganesh Pd. Singh states that no notice is required to be sent on him as he will inform the respondent No.4 who will put his appearance in the Court on Monday (7-10-1996 ). (iii) The counsel for the State should produce the file regarding enquiry having been conducted concerning examination in question at the Government level. " Thereafter, in pursuance of the earlier order of this court to re-evaluate the answer-sheets, a direction was issued on 9-10-1996. It was mentioned in the order-sheet that the counsel of the parties agreed that to maintain secrecy, the names of the examiners for the re-evaluation should be kept in the sealed cover. Accordingly, re-evaluation of the answer-sheets was done by the examiners on two dates in presence of the registrar (Inspection), Patna High court, who submitted the reports before this court, which were kept in a sealed cover. On 14-10-1996, after hearing the parties and going through the records, this court appointed the Assistant Registrar (Judicial), Patna High court, to verify the number of unused answer-sheets. Thereafter, the Assistant registrar (Judicial) submitted his report. Taking into consideration the materials collected up to that date, this court, by order dated 4-11-1996 decided to issue notice to some of the successful candidates, whose names figured in the report of the Experts. As in the answer-sheets, only the second code number was given, which was mentioned in the report of the Experts, the co-Convenor was directed to produce the. relevant documents, including the floppy containing the details as well as the admission register showing the admission of the students in different Colleges. Thereafter, with the help of the relevant documents, the roll number and the names of 257 candidates were ascertained. The co-Convenor informed that twelve candidates did not take admission. It is to be mentioned that according to the report of the Experts, 232 candidates had copied out from the memorandum of answers of Physics, 203 candidates from memorandum of answers of Chemistry and 88 from the memorandum of answers of Mathematics. When the roll numbers given in all the three subjects were compared and verified from the relevant records, the total number of candidates, alleged to have adopted unfairmeans, came to 257, As stated above, their names and roll numbers were ascertained from the relevant records. Out,of the aforesaid 257 candidates, 12 candidates did not take admission as mentioned above. When the roll numbers given in all the three subjects were compared and verified from the relevant records, the total number of candidates, alleged to have adopted unfairmeans, came to 257, As stated above, their names and roll numbers were ascertained from the relevant records. Out,of the aforesaid 257 candidates, 12 candidates did not take admission as mentioned above. Thus, the total number of candidates, alleged to have copied out from the memorandum of answers came to 245.66 candidates being respondents No.15, 20, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 35, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 51, 64, 66, 67, 71, 76, 81, 83, 84, 101, 104, 117, 120, 121, 125, 128, 135, 137, 140, 143, 149, 150, 151, 154, 156, 167, 176, 178, 179, 181, 182, 184, 187, 196, 197, 199, 200, 202, 205, 206, 210, 218, 220, 221, 226, 227, 228, 231, 243, 244 and 245, were alleged to have copied out from the memorandum of answers in all the three subjects, 125 candidates being respondents No.5, 7, 8,10,11,12,16, 21, 22,23, 24, 25, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 45, 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 68, 69, 70, 72, 75, 77, 79, 80, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 97, 98, 100, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 113, 114, 118, 119, 122, 126, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 136, 138, 141, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 152, 153, 155, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 165, 168, 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 177, 183, 185, 188, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 198, 203, 204, 207, 208, 209, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 222, 224, 233, 234, 235, 237, 238, 240, 241, 242, 246 and 248 were alleged to have copied out from the memorandum of answers in two subjects only and 54 candidates being respondents No.6, 9, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 28, 50, 52, 56, 59, 73, 74, 78, 82, 85, 86, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 99, 102,110, 112, 115, 116, 123, 124, 127, 130, 139, 142, 157, 164, 166, 169, 173, 180, 186, 190, 201, 219, 223, 225, 229, 230, 232, 236, 239, 247 and 249 were alleged to have copied out from the memorandum of answers in one subject only (Physics 39 and chemistry 15 ). Thereafter, notices were directed to be issued to 245 candidates on 18-11-1996 and, accordingly, the notices were issued to said 245 candidates and the same were validly served on them. Almost all of them have appeared and filed their show-cause separately. 12. After going through their counter-affidavits/show-causes, it appears that their stand is almost similar. As such, it is not necessary to state their stand separately. Their stand is that they are all good students having good academic records and they appeared in the examination, answered the questions from their own memory without using any unfairmeans at any stage and the allegations levelled against them are all false and mischievous. According to them, the petitioners having become unsuccessful, came out with false allegations only to harass the respondents. They also stated that they have read in different Coaching Institutes and read various text books and answered the questions in the examination from their own memory. They challenged the reports of the experts on the ground that the reports contained general and vague allegations. The experts were biased. It was not possible for them to examine so many answer-books within two days. Even their reports are vague and contradictory. Similarity of answers of some questions from the memorandum of answers does not mean that they have been copied out. The very basis of the reports of the Expert Committee regarding use of unfairmeans is untenable and unfounded in law. In some of the show-causes, the respondents have said that since there is allegation of unfairmeans, unless their answer-" books are shown to them or they are pointed out the particular default or irregularity, they are not in a position to answer the charge of misconduct or manipulation in the examination. In some of the show-causes, the respondents have referred to different Text books to justify that the answers written by them were the only one correct answers and as such if they are similar to the answers contained in the model answers supplied to the examiners, it can be said that they had used unfair-means. They have also stated that the writ applications in the present form are not maintainable and that the disputed questions of fact raised in the writ applications cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction. 13. They have also stated that the writ applications in the present form are not maintainable and that the disputed questions of fact raised in the writ applications cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the materials on the record show that there was a deep-seated fraud committed by the respondent co-Convenor in connivance with the Minister Science and Technology, namely, Brij Bihari Prasad as a result of which certain candidates were favoured and they were allowed to copy out the answers from the memorandum of answers, which were prepared by the examiners after the conduct of the examination for evaluation of the answer-sheets to help the certain candidates in the examination and this has been done for extraneous consideration. The materials on the record show that the modus operandi adopted by the co-Convenor was that after the examination was over, the candidates were given an opportunity by him to write the answers in the answer-sheets from the memorandum of answers prepared by the examiners after the conduct of the examination for the purpose of evaluation of the answer-sheets. The plan of conspiracy to favour the certain candidates was hatched up from the very beginning and the same is evident from the fact that though according to the relevant rule the Principal of the concerned College was to be appointed as convenor and there was no provision for appointment of co-Convenor but Dr. R. C. Das vikap, who was a Guide for ph. D. of the Minister, Science and technology, was appointed as co-Convenor without there being any provision for such post and, thereafter, he manipulated the things in the manner stated above. The report of the experts also supports the allegation that the private respondents were given facilities to copy out the answers from the memorandum of answers and the same could not have been done without connivance of the co-Convenor as all the answer books after the examination were in his custody. 14. The petitioners except the in-tervenor-petitioner have also stated that they have done very well in the examination and if there answer sheets would have been properly examined then their names would have been amongst the successful candidates. 14. The petitioners except the in-tervenor-petitioner have also stated that they have done very well in the examination and if there answer sheets would have been properly examined then their names would have been amongst the successful candidates. They have also submitted that if the names of the newly added respondents, who have got admission by manipulation are excluded from the list of successful candidates and their admissions are cancelled then they would get admission by virtue of their position in the merit list. 15. The private-respondents have advanced submissions, which are as follows: The writ applications filed by the petitioners are not maintainable as the original petitioners have appeared in the examination and have taken the chance and now after being unsuccessful, they cannot challenge the examination on the grounds mentioned by them. The petitioners have filed the writ applications primarily for re-evaluation of their answer-sheets and on re-evaluation to declare their result and this court cannot convert the present applications into Public Interest Litigation and to make a fishy and roving enquiry to find out as to whether the fraud and manipulation has been done in the examination by the co-Convenor in connivance with the others to help the private respondents. After re-evaluation by the expert body no fault has been found so far as evaluation of the answer-sheets by the examiners are concerned and as such no case has been made out for interference in the present cases: the report of the expert body mentioning that the answer-sheets of the private respondents have been copied out from the memorandum of answers is vague and inspires no confidence. No specific irregularities or illegalities committed by each of the respondents have been given by the expert body and as such the report is also based on surmises. They have also asserted that the experts were from the Patna University and they are engaged in teaching in different Coaching institutes and as such they have submitted a false report regarding the manipulation in the examination. They have also submitted that the so-called grounds given in the report by the expert body for coming to the conclusion are vague and the same cannot be basis for cancelling the examination of the private respondents. They have also submitted that the so-called grounds given in the report by the expert body for coming to the conclusion are vague and the same cannot be basis for cancelling the examination of the private respondents. The private respondents have answered the questions after taking coaching from the different Institutes and as such if the answers given by them tallied with the memorandum of answers, the same cannot be a ground to interfere or come to the conclusion that they had copied out from the same. They have also submitted that the judicial review only entitles to this court to find out as to whether there is any defect in decision making process or not and not to go into the merit of the case. They have also submitted that the private respondents have not been given adequate opportunity to present their case. It was also contended that in this case, there is violation of principle of natural justice; inasmuch as the private-respondents were not afforded an opportunity with regard to the irregularities or illegalities noticed by the expert body. They have also stated that they are bright students and they have appeared in the examination and have done the questions on the basis of their own memory and they have done rough work in the answer-sheets to suggest that the questions have been answered by them. They have completed first year course and at this stage cancellation of result by this court will ruin their career. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents-State, Convenor, Co-convenor and the Minister contended that the examinations have been conducted in a fair manner and the co-Convenor was appointed as the convenor, the principal of Muzaffarpur College, was to retire on 30th June, 1996. The co-Convenor was appointed by the State government on the recommendation of the convenor and he conducted the examination fairly and the allegations made by the petitioners against them are false and they have not been able to prove those allegations according to law. 17. The first question, which has to be considered, is as to whether the writ applications are maintainable or not? the petitioners have challenged the examination of C. E. E. on the ground of fraud, manipulation and use of unfairmeans and the petitioners except intervenor have prayed for re-evaluation of the answer-sheets and to declare them as successful on re-evaluation of the answer-sheets. the petitioners have challenged the examination of C. E. E. on the ground of fraud, manipulation and use of unfairmeans and the petitioners except intervenor have prayed for re-evaluation of the answer-sheets and to declare them as successful on re-evaluation of the answer-sheets. Intervenor-petitioner Arun Kumar, who has been added as petitioner No.2 in C. W. J. C. No.7779/96, filed a writ in the nature of public Interest Litigation on 5-8-1996, challenging the aforesaid examination on the ground as mentioned above. C. W. J. C. No.7666/96 was filed on 6-8-96 and C. W. J. C. No.7779/96 was filed on 8-8-1996. The application filed by Arun kumar was taken up on 16-8-1996 by a division Bench of this Court presided over by the Chief Justice. The Bench noticed that this court had already applied its mind in the aforesaid two writ applications i. e. C. W. J. C. Nos.7666/96 and 7779/96 and has passed certain order and, thereafter, permitted the petitioner Arun Kumar to withdraw the application with liberty to intervene in the said writ applications and, thereafter, arun Kumar intervened and he has been added as party in one of the writ applications as stated above. The allegations made in these petition as well as in the petition of Arun Kumar, which is a part of the record of this case by virtue of addition as party, disclose serious allegation of fraud and manipulation in the examination in question. Where such things are brought to the notice of the court, then it becomes the duty of this court that truth and validity of the allegations may be enquired into in the interest of public. The nature of litigation assumes the character of public interest for the reason that the prayer has been made to remedy the public mischief. The allegations, which have also been supported by some papers, are so serious that throwing out the petition in limine would have undermined the public interest. A similar question arose before the apex court in the case of Shivaji rao nilangekar Patil V/s. Dr. Mahesh Madhav gosavi and others, reported in A. I. R.1987 Supreme Court 294. In that case, the allegation was of tampering and manipulation of the grade-sheets of m. D. examination conducted by the bombay University to help the daughter of the then Chief Minister. Mahesh Madhav gosavi and others, reported in A. I. R.1987 Supreme Court 294. In that case, the allegation was of tampering and manipulation of the grade-sheets of m. D. examination conducted by the bombay University to help the daughter of the then Chief Minister. One of the points raised in the said case was that the affidavit filed by the petitioner was not reliable and as such the Court should not interfere in the matter. The apex Court overruled the objections and noticed that when such serious allegation was made with regard to the state of affairs of public interest the private litigation assumes the character of public interest litigation and an enquiry has to be held if the same is necessary and essential for the administration of justice. In paragraph-36, it was held as follows: "the allegations made in the petition disclose a lamentable state of affairs in one of the premier universities of India. The petitioner might have moved in his private interest, but enquiry into the conduct of the examiners of the Bombay university in one of the highest Medical degrees was a matter of public interest. Such state of affairs having been brought to the notice of the court, it was the duty of the court to the public that the truth and the validity of the allegations made be inquired into. It was in furtherance of public interest that an enquiry into the state of affairs of public institution becomes necessary and private litigation assumes the character of public interest litigation and such an enquiry cannot be avoided if it is necessary and essential for the administration of justice. " 18. If the allegations made in the petition are found to be true, then that will amount to public mischief and enquiry into such matter is necessary in the public interest and also essential for administration of justice. Thus, there is no force in the submission advanced on behalf of the private-respondents that the writ application is not maintainable. 19. It was submitted by the respondents that this court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot make roving and fishing enquiry to find out as to whether the allegations made by the petitioners are correct or not. I can say that this submission is also devoid of merit for the reasons stated hereinafter. 19. It was submitted by the respondents that this court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot make roving and fishing enquiry to find out as to whether the allegations made by the petitioners are correct or not. I can say that this submission is also devoid of merit for the reasons stated hereinafter. Every court has its plenary power to adjudicate upon any issue raised before it as well as other issue emerging from the materials available before it in the manner known to law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. However, the power of discharging the statutory functions should be done in the interest of justice and should be confined within the legal permissibility. The Court cannot decide the matter on the basis- of extraneous materials or irrelevant documents nor it has to be guided by sentiments and other irrelevant considerations. In this connection, I am tempted to quote a passage from the treatise. "the Judge ?s Legislator" written by Benjamin Car-dozo, which is as follows: "the Judge, even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness he is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system. . . . . " 20. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution is supervisory as well as discretionary and the legislature has put no limitation as to exercise of the power but it is well-settled that the power has to be exercised on well recognised ground. If the public interest is undermined by arbitrary, mala fide and perverse executive action then the writ is maintainable and the Court can make an enquiry to find out the truth so that the public mischief is remedied. 21. The present case is not a case of roving or fishing enquiry on the other hand on the basis of serious allegation supported by the documents this court found that a prima facie case for determination and decision of the allegations is made out. 21. The present case is not a case of roving or fishing enquiry on the other hand on the basis of serious allegation supported by the documents this court found that a prima facie case for determination and decision of the allegations is made out. As there was an allegation of interpolation and fraud by the persons entrusted to conduct the fair and free examination this court thought to make enquiry in the public interest. As there was a direct allegation of fraud against the Minister concerned also, the matter could not be sent to the State government for enquiry. 22. A lengthy submission has been advanced on behalf of the respondents about the power of this Court to interfere with the action of the respondents-authorities. It was asserted that the power of the judicial review of administrative action does not empower this court to proceed as an appellate court. In this connection, the respondents have relied upon cases reported in kumari Nilima Mishra V/s. Dr. Harminder kumar Paintel, AIR 1990 Supreme court 1402 and Tata Cellular \. Union of india, 1994 S. C. C. Volume 6, Page 651. 23. In Nilima case (supra), it was held that an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with rules expressed in the latin Maxim audi alteram partem. Meaning thereby the decision maker should afford to any party to a dispute an opportunity to present his case. There should be fairness and fair procedure in the administrative action. In the tata Cellular case (supra), the apex court while dealing with a contractual matter held that the judicial power of review is exercised to rein in any unbridled executive functioning. The judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision in support of which the application for judicial review is made, but the decision making process itself. It is different from the appeal. In paragraph-94 of the said judgment, it was held, inter alia, that the modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action; the Court does not sit as a Court of appeal but merely review the manner in which the decision was made; the Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. 24. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. 24. It is well-settled by the decisions rendered by the apex Court that the power of the judicial review is not a power of appeal or revision. The aforesaid propositions are well settled and this Court in exercising of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the constitution cannot exercise the power of appeal in disguise and it cannot go into the merit of the case and has to see only as to whether there is an error in decision making process. The error in decision making process may be on several grounds. If in the decision making process the authorities have acted mala fide, arbitrarily, irrationally and fraudulently the judicial review is not barred and the writ application is maintainable. 25. The court generally does not interfere with the examination conducted by the educational Institutions however, when the examination is challenged on the ground of use of unfair-means by adopting fraudulent means or by tampering with records, the writ application is maintainable and the Court can interfere in the matter if the proper case is made out. This Court as well as the apex Court have interfered in such a matter in appropriate cases. 26. The allegation, as noted above, in this case is that certain candidates appearing in the C. E. E. Examination 1996, were favoured by providing them facilities to copy out from the memorandum of answers by the authorities incharge of the examination with the connivance of the Minister science and Technology. There is no direct evidence in this case to prove such allegations and, in my view, there could be no such evidence in a case like this for the reason that the answer-sheets are kept by the persons incharge of the examination in secrecy and if bunglings, manipulation or fraud are committed, then it is not possible for the candidates to show as to how or in what manner manipulation etc. have been done. have been done. In such cases, only evidence can be in the nature of circumstantial evidence as well as the probabilities can be brought on the record and if the circumstances and probabilities are proved, then this court may infer about the bunglings or manipulation or deep-rooted fraud having been committed in conducting the examination or publishing the result. 27 In the case of Shivajirao Nilan-gekar Patil (supra), as stated above, the question was as to whether tampering was done with certain records to favour the daughter of a Chief Minister. The apex court held that while the court should be conscious to deal with the allegation of mala fide or cast aspersions on holders of high office and power, the court cannot ignore the probabilities arising from the proven circumstances. In paragraph 37, it was held as follows: - "the allegations of the petitioner have been noted about the role of the chief Minister. It is well to remember that rajagopala Ayyangar, J. speaking for this court in C. S. Rowjeev. Andhra Pradesh state Road Transport Corporation (1964) 6 scr 330 : ( AIR 1964 SC 962 ) observed at page 347 (of SCR) : (at p.969 of AIR) of the report that where allegations of this nature were made, the court must be cautious. It is true that allegation of mala fides and of improper motives on the part of those in power are frequently made and their frequency has increased in recent times. This court made these observations as early as 1964. It is more true today than ever before. But it has to be borne in mind that things are happening in public life which were never even anticipated before and there are several glaring instances of misuse of power by men in authority and position. This is a ohenomenon of which the courts are bound to take judicial notice. In the said decision, the court noted that it is possible to decide a matter of probabilities and of the inference to be drawn from all circumstances on which no direct evidence, could be adduced. This is a ohenomenon of which the courts are bound to take judicial notice. In the said decision, the court noted that it is possible to decide a matter of probabilities and of the inference to be drawn from all circumstances on which no direct evidence, could be adduced. The Court further noted that it was somewhat unfortunate that allegations of mala fide which could have no foundation in fact were made in several cases which had come up before this court and other courts and it had been found that these were made merely with a view to cause prejudice or in the hope that whether they have basis in fact or not some of which might at least stick. It is therefore the duty of the courts, warned this Court in the said decision to scrutinise these allegations with care so as to avoid being in any manner influenced by them in cases where they have no foundation in fact. In this task which is cast on the courts, it will be conductive to have disposal and consideration of them. If those against whom allegations are made came forward to place before the court either the denials or their version of the matter so that the courts might be in a position to judge whether the onus that lay upon those who make allegations of mala fides on the part of the authority had been discharged in proving it. Of course, the facts in the instant case are different. It is true that the basis of the allegations being the affidavit of Dr. Mishra was considered by the learned Single Judge as well as the division Bench to be thoroughly unreliable. In this case, there was specific and categorical denial by the erstwhile Chief minister that tampering was done at his behest. Therefore, while the court should be conscious to deal with the allegations of mala fide or cast aspersions on holders of high office and power, the court cannot ignore the probabilities arising from proven circumstances. " 28. It was also held in this case that in such type of cases, the standard of proof is satisfied on a balance of probabilities. However, even within this formula, there are variations depending upon the subject matter of allegations. " 28. It was also held in this case that in such type of cases, the standard of proof is satisfied on a balance of probabilities. However, even within this formula, there are variations depending upon the subject matter of allegations. The question in this case to be considered is as to whether on the basis of probabilities arising from the proven circumstances, the petitioners have been able to prove the allegations. 29. There is no allegation by the petitioners that unfairmeans was adopted by the candidates at the Examination Centres nor is there any report from the Superintendents of the examination Centres. The allegation is that fraud, bungling and manipulation were done after the examination. Dr. K. Prasad was the Principal of M. I. T. , mu/,affarpur and according to the Rule, he was appointed Convenor on 20-4-1996. The materials on record show that the Department was in the know of the fact that he was retiring on 30-6-1996, by which examination process could not be over. Even then, the Department did not make any effort for appointment of a person next to the Principal as a Convenor. The Principal was made Convenor on 20-4-1996 and this letter is alleged to have been sent to the Principal by the Special Messenger, who, in his turn, on 21-4-1996 vide Annexure C-R/l informed that he was to retire on 30-6-1996 and as such a post of co-convenor should be created and recommended the name of Dr. R. C. Das vikal to be appointed as a co-Convenor and he will entrust all the confidential works to him. Under the Rules, there is no post of co-Convenor. When the said letter is alleged to have been received, no attempt was made by the department to create a post of Co-convenor and the File, which has been produced by the learned counsel for the state, shows that on the recommendation of the Principal, Dr. R. C. Das vikal was appointed as a Co-convenor vide order dated 27-4-1996. The materials on the record further show that after retirement of the convenor-Principal on 30-6-1996 the co-Convenor remained incharge of all the records on 1-7-1996 till the publication of the result. According to the petitioners, the department purposely did not take steps to appoint the person next to the principal as a convenor with ulterior motive. In this connection, they have brought on record that Dr. According to the petitioners, the department purposely did not take steps to appoint the person next to the principal as a convenor with ulterior motive. In this connection, they have brought on record that Dr. R. C. Das vikal was the guide of the Minister, science and Technology Shri Brij Behari prasad. This fact has been admitted by dr. R. C. Das vikal as well as the Minister in their counter-affidavits. The appointment of Dr. R. C. Das vikal as co-Convenor was wholly illegal as it was against the Rule. Even if there was necessity to appoint a Convenor in place of the Principal, the person next to the Principal should have been appointed as co-Convenor and only on his refusal, steps should have been taken to appoint another person. Admittedly, dr. R. C. Das vikal was not the next man to the Principal in seniority, thus his appointment as co-Convenor was wholly illegal and there is every reason to believe that he was appointed only because of closeness with the Minister, science and Technology Dr. Brij Behan prasad. 30. The material on the record further shows that Aditi Anindita respondent no.159 who is sister of the wife of the only son of Dr. R. C. Das vikal was also to appear in the examination. The petitioners have alleged that inspite of the knowledge of the said fact, Dr. R. C. Das vikal accepted the post of the Co-convenor with a view to help her. The co-Convenor, respondent No.3, Dr. R. C. Das vikal stated in his counter-affidavit that there was a love marriage between his son and the sister of Aditi anindita and he had no concern with the said marriage. He had also no knowledge of the fact that said Aditi anindita was appearing in the examination. The petitioners have filed an affidavit controverting the aforesaid statement of respondent No.3, annexing therewith an Invitation Card as Annexure 14 to show that the invitation card was issued by the co-Convenor. Thereafter, the co-Convenor in his affidavit dated 14-10-1996 did not deny the existence of the said card, but stated that the said invitation card might have been printed and distributed by his son. 31. Thereafter, the co-Convenor in his affidavit dated 14-10-1996 did not deny the existence of the said card, but stated that the said invitation card might have been printed and distributed by his son. 31. In view of the said statement of respondent No.3, not denying the genuineness of Annexure 14, it has to he held that one of his relations was to appear in the examination and even then he accepted the post of Co-convenor. 32. According to the allegation, Sri brij Behari Prasad, Minister for Science and Technology has also hand in the manipulation; inasmuch as he is alleged to have pressurised the members of the committee and personally took away 200 (300-600) answer-sheets from the custody of the convenor (co-Convenor)after the first coding and the persons were alleged to have been engaged to copy out from the memorandum of instructions at the residence of the Minister located near the M. l. T. Campus, muzaffarpur. It is asserted that prior to the examinations, the persons of the minister were collecting rupees one lac to rupees fifty thousand per candidate to get him success in the examination. 33. The Minister, Science and technology, has filed a counter-affidavit, wherein he has denied the allegations made against him. He also denied the allegation of taking away the answer-sheets and also making available the facility to the private respondents to copy out from the memorandum of instructions at his house. However, he has not denied the fact that he was present at Muzaffarpur at the relevant time. 34. The statement made by one of the examiners in camera proceeding shows that at the time of evaluation, the minister, Science and Technology, was present in the mess, where the examiners were taking lunch. As stated above, the co-Convenor was appointed by the Minister. According to the Rules, the Principal is to be appointed as the convenor and even though the Principal, who was the convenor, was to retire, no attempt was made by the department, which was under the charge of the said Minister, to appoint a person next senior to the Principal as co-Convenor, on the other hand, the minister appointed respondent No.3 dr. R. C. Das vikal, who was his guide as co-Convenor. The appointment of shri Vikal as co-Convenor against the rule itself shows that the Minister was interested in appointing a person close to him as a co-Convenor. R. C. Das vikal, who was his guide as co-Convenor. The appointment of shri Vikal as co-Convenor against the rule itself shows that the Minister was interested in appointing a person close to him as a co-Convenor. The evidence shows that he was also present at muzaffarpur at the time of evaluation and the statement of one of the examiners recorded in camera proceeding shows that the Minister was present in mess, where the examiners were taking lunch. Under the Rules, the Minister has no concern with the examination or evaluation as the same has to be conducted by a Committee. He was present at Muzaffarpur and had also visited the mess in the campus of M. I. T. , Muzaffarpur, which fact strengthens the case of the petitioners that when some of the examiners refused to evaluate the answer-sheets because of manipulation, the said Minister had gone to pressurise them or to put them under fear so that no hue and cry could be raised against the bungling in the examination. Subsequent conduct of the Minister shows that he was hand in gloves with the co-Convenor. It appears that in the Legislative Council, a question regarding manipulation and irregularities in the examination was raised. From the order of the said Minister dated 1-8-1996 at page 43 of File No.1/96, it appears that he was informed that the examiners had objected regarding manipulation and irregularities in the answer-sheets at the time of evaluation and three of the examiners had refused to do the evaluation work, but inspite of the knowledge of the aforesaid fact, he did not stay the publication of the result and, on the other hand, it appears that as an eyewash he constituted a Committee of some of the officers of the Department. After having come to know the aforesaid irregularities, in normal course, the Minister should have stayed the publication of the result, which was published on 2-8-1996. At this stage, I may mention that as per the co-Convenor, the result was published on 31-7-1996 on the Notice Board of the college, but that statement made by the co-Convenor cannot be given any credence for the reason that he has been trying before this court to suppress the true fact and he has not filed any paper to show that the result was published on 31.7.1996. 35. 35. Thus the aforesaid action of the minister concerned shows that he was deeply interested in getting his own man appointed as a co-Convenor. This was done with ulterior and illegal motive. 36. According to the assertion made in the counter-affidavit of respondent No.3-co-Convenor, answer sheets were received on 2-7-1996 from the different Centres and then first coding and second coding were done. The first coding was done by other members of the Committee, excluding the co-Convenor and the second coding was done by himself. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to the statement made in the counter-affidavit of respondent no.3 filed on 16-8-1996. According to him, after answer books were received, the Members of the Committee assembled at Muzaffarpur, except the convenor. The answer-books were given to the members of the said Committee in equal number. They gave first code in the answer books. The first page of the answer book contains marks for detachment of a portion of first page. The portion, where the students roll number, name, signature of invigilator and serial number of answer books were given, used to be detached by the Principal/member by affixing his. code and, thereafter, the same code is to be affixed in the latter portion of the answer-books. After completion of the said formality, the entire answer books used to be given to the convenor in first code. The other members of the Committee used to keep first code in their own custody. The convenor, thereafter, used to give another code in the answer-book at two places. Thereafter, he has no knowledge about roll number and the name of the candidates. 37. According to the provision of rule 9.4.1 of the Rules (Annexure 5 of c. W. J. C. No.7666/96), the second coding has to be done by the Committee consisting of three senior Professors to be nominated by the convenor. This provision has been made to maintain a secrecy and to have a check over the convenor. Ignoring this rule, the co-Convenor (respondent No.3) himself did the work of second coding and this is a circumstance to show that from the very beginning, the co-Convenor was managing thing in such a way so as to do so some manipulation in the examination. Ignoring this rule, the co-Convenor (respondent No.3) himself did the work of second coding and this is a circumstance to show that from the very beginning, the co-Convenor was managing thing in such a way so as to do so some manipulation in the examination. When the counsel for the co-Convenor was confronted with the aforesaid rule during the course of hearing, he took a different stand and stated in the affidavit filed on his behalf that co-Convenor and Dr. A. K. Sinha-Member secretary of the C. E. E. Examination, 1996, had affixed the second code number and they have also received remuneration for the said work. The conduct of respondent No.3 in taking different stand and not getting the second coding done by a Committee is also a strong circumstance to support the allegations made by the petitioners. 38. From the very beginning, the assertion made on behalf of the petitioners was that after the examination was over some of the favoured candidates were provided with an opportunity to copy out answers from the memorandum of answers prepared for the purpose of evaluation of the answer-sheets. In C. W. J. C. No.7666 of 1996, it was asserted that the memorandum of answers was prepared by the paper setter. Respondent No.3 in his first counter-affidavit filed on 16-8-1996 at paragraph No.30 stated that no memorandum of instructions was prepared for the examiners nor it can be. The examiners used to evaluate as per answers given in the answer-books. In paragraph 31, it is stated that the allegation that the memorandum of answers were supplied by the question setters was totally false. In reply to the supplementary petition filed by the petitioners that model answers were supplied to the question setters, the stand of the co-Convenor in the counter-affidavit is that no model answers were supplied to the examiners. The question as to whether the model answers were prepared by the question settlers or Examiners is of no relevance. The relevant point is whether model answers were prepared or not and if prepared then whether some of the candidates were provided facilities to copy out from the same by the person in custody of the answer-sheets. The question as to whether the model answers were prepared by the question settlers or Examiners is of no relevance. The relevant point is whether model answers were prepared or not and if prepared then whether some of the candidates were provided facilities to copy out from the same by the person in custody of the answer-sheets. If it is found that the model answers were prepared for the purposes of evaluation of the answer-books and the answer-books of some of the successful candidates tallied with the aforesaid model answers, then it is a strong circumstance to show that manipulation and bungling have been done subsequent to the receipt of the answer-books in the custody of the co-Convenor. The petitioner of C. W. J. C. No.7666 of 1996 annexed the memorandum of answers of Physics as annexure 6 and stated that the answer-sheets of several successful candidates tallied with the memorandum of answers. When the co-Convenor took a stand that no model answers were supplied to the examiners, then the court compared some of the answer-books of successful candidates from the model answers and, prima facie, found the assertions made by the petitioner to be correct and ordered for re-evaluation of the answer-books. However, as the co-Convenor was denying the very existence of the model answers by taking a different stand at different time, this court felt it necessary to examine the examiners so as to come to a finding as to whose assertion before the court was a correct one. This court did not send the matter for enquiry to any official of the state Government keeping in view the fact that there was allegation against the minister, Science and Technology as in such a case impartial enquiry was not possible. Six examiners and one question-setter were examined. As stated above, the examiners, who were contacted agreed to make statement, but stated that if their names were exposed, then there was danger to their lives and as such their statements were recorded on 25-9-1996 in camera with the consent of the parties, whose statements are An-nexures A/1 to A/7. Two examiners of each subject, namely, Mathematics, physics and Chemistry, were examined. Before their examination, memorandum of answers of Chemistry was appended as Annexure 13 in C. W. J. C. No.7779 of 1996. Two examiners of each subject, namely, Mathematics, physics and Chemistry, were examined. Before their examination, memorandum of answers of Chemistry was appended as Annexure 13 in C. W. J. C. No.7779 of 1996. The memorandum of answers of mathematics was also brought on the record in C. W. J. C. No.7779 of 1996 as annexure 3. The paper-setter stated that no memorandum of answers was prepared by him. The examiners of all the three subjects stated that the memorandum of answers prepared by the Head Examiner were supplied to them in the examination at the time of evaluation. One of them had also stated that only memorandum of those questions were supplied to them, which were to be examined by them. The Examiners of Physics after perusal of Annexure 6 of C. W. J. C. No.7666/96 i. e. the memorandum of answers of Physics stated that the same was the copy of the memorandum of answers that were supplied to them at the time of evaluation. Similarly, the Examiners of the Mathematics also stated that Annexure 6 to the petition for addition in C. W. J. C. No.7779 of 1996, was the copy of the memorandum of answers supplied to them at the time of evaluation. The Examiners of Chemistry, however, stated that Annexure 13 was not the memorandum of answers of Chemistry, which was supplied to them at the time of evaluation. After recording of the aforesaid statements in presence of the learned counsel for the parties, the co-Convenor admitted that the model answers prepared by the Head Examiner might be kept in the Record Room in boxes. Later on he also filed an affidavit on 7-10-1996 stating in paragraph 5 that after enquiry, he learnt from the Head Examiner that he had prepared the memorandum of instructions and after evaluation of the answer-books, he had kept the same, which was sealed. 39. It is impossible to believe that the co-Convenor will be ignorant of the fact of preparation of the memorandum of answers. He tried to mislead this court stating that no memorandum of answers was supplied to the examiners. Admitted position is that he was in custody of the papers and he had kept the same in the Strong Room. 39. It is impossible to believe that the co-Convenor will be ignorant of the fact of preparation of the memorandum of answers. He tried to mislead this court stating that no memorandum of answers was supplied to the examiners. Admitted position is that he was in custody of the papers and he had kept the same in the Strong Room. In my view, he deliberately made a false statement before this court that no memorandum of answers was prepared so that this court might not proceed to enquire the assertion made on behalf of the petitioners as to whether same was correct, or not. The conduct of the co-Convenor (respondent No.3) from the very beginning after his appointment as co-Convenor as well as his conduct in court speaks volumes against him and prob-abilises the assertion made on behalf of the petitioners regarding the bungling and manipulation in the examination to the extent asserted by them. 40. The co-Convenor produced the papers alleged to be the memorandum of answers kept in the strong room. The memorandum of answers of Physics and mathematics were already on the record and the examiners made statements that they were copies of memorandum of answers prepared for evaluation of the answer-sheets. This court after considering the material by order dated 9-10-1996 ordered for re-evaluation of the answer-sheets produced before this court in terms of the earlier order by a committee to find out as to whether they have been copied out from one source or not and also whether they have been correctly evaluated. The committee was constituted of eminent professors of a Prestigious Institute of this State under the Chairmanship of the Principal of the said College. The copies of the memorandum of answers of Physics and Mathematics were on the record and the memorandum of answers of Chemistry, which was produced by the co-Convenor, was supplied to them to re-evaluate the answer-sheets. The re-evaluation was done by the Expert committee on 12-10-96 and mathematics submitted by the Expert Committee are as follows: "report of re-evaluation of scripts in mathematics Answer-books of all examinees sent for evaluation were re-evaluated. There was no appreciable change in the marks of examinees except for the examinees whose Code numbers of answer books are given below. The re-evaluation was done by the Expert committee on 12-10-96 and mathematics submitted by the Expert Committee are as follows: "report of re-evaluation of scripts in mathematics Answer-books of all examinees sent for evaluation were re-evaluated. There was no appreciable change in the marks of examinees except for the examinees whose Code numbers of answer books are given below. Answer books of the following code numbers all tallied from the memorandum sheet (Mathematics solutions) supplied to us and in the sense they are almost copies of each other. In answering question No.6, most of the examinees getting more than 50 marks, have committed the same blunder and have copied this blunder, each other, still they have been awarded full marks (in fact i=x - iy= (x+iy)2 Code numbers of such candidates are given below. However, the marks obtained by the examinees getting less than 50 marks seems genuine. The answers of questions do not tally with the memorandum of answer supplied by co-Convenor but tally with photostat copy of answers/supplied by petitioners in the case of candidates, getting more than 50 marks. PHYSICS in pursuance of the order dated 10-10-1996, in C. W. J. C. Nos.7666/96, 7779/96 and 8122/96 we the teachers of physics Department, Science College and patna University, Patna, re-evaluated the answer-scripts of CEET 96 (Total number 1740) on October-12, and 13, 1996 ). We found the following irregularities in 232 answer-scripts whose Code numbers are appended herewith. 1. The answers in these scripts tallied in detail with/without minor variations with model answers (annexure iv) and/or with one another. 2. Diagrams and notations were strikingly similar in these scripts while those widely varied in other scripts. For example in Q-1, each of the examinees of this category took (i) LI, v and w as the speeds at bottom, middle and top, respectively, and motion was shown counterclockwise, (ii) in Q.-17, resistence appears always to the left of gal-variometers in (Hi) In Q.-11, the figure in the model answers and these scripts is vertical while it is horizontal in the question paper. 3. Typographical mistakes and other peculiarities in model answers were faithfully repeated in these answer-scripts but were absent in other scripts. For example, (i) In Q-11, t2 was used in place of t1. (ii) In 0-7, Cgs unit was used while elsewhere SI unit was used. 3. Typographical mistakes and other peculiarities in model answers were faithfully repeated in these answer-scripts but were absent in other scripts. For example, (i) In Q-11, t2 was used in place of t1. (ii) In 0-7, Cgs unit was used while elsewhere SI unit was used. (III) use of word "decrease" in Q-4 in the first line when a negative sign also appears in the expression. (iv) Number of fringes N=d/b in Q-10 (v) Speed of sound 340 ms, in Q-13 which is neither mentioned in the question nor is the standard value. (vi) "note" in question No.2. (vii) Negative sign in expression for tg in Q-16. (viii) In Q-12 these scripts contain word "position" in place of piston. 4. Only nominal rough work was seen in these scripts. 5. These answer-scripts have generally high to very high marks (mostly above 50) while other scripts have marks rarely above fifty. 6. These scripts contained generally identical confident steps in questions chosen for answer while other scripts contained carrying hesitant steps which is normal in examination. However, it is worth noting that all these scripts do not contain all twenty answers. The questions chosen for answer also differ from copy to copy. In a few cases, a seemingly correct answer was found scratched by the examinee. No significant discrepancy was observed in marks awarded to scripts other than the above mentioned ones. However, no differences were observed in about 25 answer scripts. We would also like to mention that similarities of answers with model answers are so glaring that these should have been observed bv the examiners. Only one of the examiners did point it out in one case. (Code No.110686 securing 44 marks) and awarded zero marks in only that question. Report on re-evaluation of answer-scripts in Chemistry. We have gone through the scripts of examinees made available to us on 12.10.1996 and 13.10.1996. We have come to the conclusion that the copies identified by us has copied their answers either from the memorandum supplied to us or by some other common source. The anomalies identified by us are given in detail in the following paragraphs. The Chemistry paper comprises numericals, short answer type and descriptive questions.1. The Q. No.1 b, arithmatical. The memorandum is incomplete. The same has been copied in most of the answer-books.2. The anomalies identified by us are given in detail in the following paragraphs. The Chemistry paper comprises numericals, short answer type and descriptive questions.1. The Q. No.1 b, arithmatical. The memorandum is incomplete. The same has been copied in most of the answer-books.2. The part (b) of Q. N.-2 has the use of atomic weight data, for calculation. Teachers and students usually remember common value and not the data given in the books. The data given in the books are slightly differ from book to book. The value given in memorandum is q.2773/ 107.868 (usually written as Q.2773/107.8. The same has been copied in the answer books of defective scripts. The language and sequence of calculation has also been copied fully in most of the scripts having more than 50 marks.3. In Q. No.3. b, The finally/calculated answer is wrong in memorandum (memo 0.0316/0.09615 = 0.1414 the correct value is 0.327. The same wrong calculation has been shown in the answer-books.4. The numerical portion of Q. No.5 (b) has been copied by student from memorandum.5. The Q. No.7a is short answer type question. The language and sequence of answer given in the memorandum is similar as found in the answer-scripts of some students securing more than 50 marks. The memorandum of 7b is defeclive (given 2-methyl-but 1-01. correct 2-methyl-butanol-1 ). The same defective answer has been copied by students.6. Q. No.8 is from organic chemistry. The sequence of answer and its order in answer-script is the same as given in the memorandum.7. Q. No.9 (Organic) should be completed in two or three steps. The memorandum prepared has completed answer in one step, which is not fully justified. The same has been copied in most of the answer-books securing more than 50 marks.8. Q. No.10 has five parts, a, b, c, d, e. In memorandum, the answer given in the order a, b, d, c and e. The student copied the answer in the same sequence but given normal order as a, b, c, d, and e. Thus answer of d appeared at c and that of c at d. The marks awarded should be 3 (three), but has been awarded full marks (5 ). From the sequence of answer it is absolutely clear that answer of Q.10 has been copied from memorandum by most of the boys reported by us.9. From the sequence of answer it is absolutely clear that answer of Q.10 has been copied from memorandum by most of the boys reported by us.9. In case of Q. No.9b, the answer of 9-b has been written in unusual and uncommon language. " (The reaction occurs in two steps, displacement is on the oxium ion of ROH whose good leaving group is the weekly basic H2o ). The answer-scripts contain the same unusual words in same sequence with no change as given in the memorandum. 10. In Q. No.15 b-The language of the memorandum is fall a (i) Li is more metallic as it falls left to Be. a (ii) Mg is more metallic as it fall beyond mg. ). In most of the answer-books, the same thing has been written with slight modification. 11. The language and sequence of Q. Nos.17 and 18 given in the memorandum corresponds with the scripts of the answer books completely. In normal practice, the such sequence is not adopted by teachers and students. Thus, it is clear that use of unfair-means has been done. 12. The Q.18 b. is numerical problem, on calculation the answer should be-425.25 J. The student has calculated the same, but finally writes it-425 J. The same answer has also been given in the memorandum. 13. The answer of Q. No.20 b should be violet or bluish violet. In memorandum the answer has been as purple. The answer-script of copies identified which has used unfair-means also has the same answer. " 41. Learned counsel for the private respondents challenged the report submitted by the Expert Committee on several grounds. Firstly, it was submitted that the report is vague. From the perusal of the relevant portion of the report, it is clear that the report is clear and specific, containing the details of the defects or irregularities found by them suggesting copying out the answers from the memorandum of answers given by them and as such it cannot be said that the report is vague and cryptic. 42. To find out as to whether the candidates had copied out from one source or not, the Expert Committee examined the answer-sheets of thousand of successful candidates as well as some of the unsuccessful candidates and the report shows that they found irregularities and illegalities in their answer-sheets suggesting that they had copied out from one source. 42. To find out as to whether the candidates had copied out from one source or not, the Expert Committee examined the answer-sheets of thousand of successful candidates as well as some of the unsuccessful candidates and the report shows that they found irregularities and illegalities in their answer-sheets suggesting that they had copied out from one source. It was not necessary at all for them to mention irregularities or illegalities of each of the private respondents. They found that the irregularities were common with regard to the questions answered by the private respondents. Then they have pointed out the same at one place. It is true that all the candidates have not answered the same questions, but the questions, which were answered by the candidates, were found suffering from illegalities and irregularities, which were common and, accordingly, the Expert committee mentioned about the same. Thus, it cannot be said that no specific irregularities or illegalities have been mentioned in the report of the Expert committee. Thus, the submission is devoid of any substance. 43. It was further submitted that the Experts were from the Patna university and as they were engaged in different Coaching Institutes, they were biased as the students of their Coaching students were not selected in sufficient number and, accordingly, they submitted a false report regarding the manipulation in the examination. This submission is also without substance. The answer-sheets were having second code numbers. Neither the names of the candidates nor their roll numbers were given in the answer-sheets at the time of re-evaluation. Only second code number was mentioned. As such they were not knowing either the names of the candidates or their roll numbers. Only after the papers were produced by the co-Convenor from the strong room, the names of the candidates were identified and as such the members of the Expert committee were not knowing the identity of the students. This apart, there is nothing on the record to show that the members of the Committee were imparting education in different Coaching institutes and, as such, this submission appears to be conjecture on the part of the private respondents. 44. This apart, there is nothing on the record to show that the members of the Committee were imparting education in different Coaching institutes and, as such, this submission appears to be conjecture on the part of the private respondents. 44. It was further submitted that the private respondents have studied from the standard Text-Books and have taken coaching and as such even if their answers tallied with the memorandum of answers, the same could not be a ground to hold that they had copied out from the memorandum of answers. During the course of hearing, they referred to several standard Text Books. They have tried to show that the answers have been given in the same manner as in the Text Books. The questions were theoretical as well as numerical. In Physics and Chemistry, most of the questions were theoretical. There could be no dispute that the correct answers of the questions answered by the candidates were the same as given in the memorandum of answers and if that would have tallied, there was no question of being manipulation in the examination. Here the Expert Committee has found that answers have been reproduced in the same manner having the same mistakes either in writing or spelling as found in the memorandum of answers. The students other than the private respondents having secured higher marks have written answers in their own language, which will be evident from the perusal of their answer-books. The perusal of the answer-sheets will also show that the manner of writing by other successful candidates and the private respondents is of a different nature. While the writings of other candidates show that they had written it hurriedly suggesting of their sitting in the examination centres, whereas, writings in the answer-books of the private respondents show that they have written in leisurely manner, which has been noticed by the Expert Committee. The learned counsel for the private respondents in support of this assertion relied upon a judgment of the Supreme court in the case of Subhas Chandra and ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. , reported in 1995 Supp (1) S. C. C.325. 45. From the facts of the said case, it appears the screening test was held in short-list the candidates before making final selection for appointment to the post of Medical Officer. The result of screening test was published on 24-2-1993. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. , reported in 1995 Supp (1) S. C. C.325. 45. From the facts of the said case, it appears the screening test was held in short-list the candidates before making final selection for appointment to the post of Medical Officer. The result of screening test was published on 24-2-1993. The unsuccessful candidates filed a writ application before the High court. This Court cancelled the result of the screening test. One of the points for consideration in the said writ application was that due to rampant corruption, the question papers were leaked out and they became marketable commodity before the examination. The high Court cancelled the result of the examination on several grounds, including the aforesaid ground. The Supreme court set aside the judgment of this court. In paragraph No; 25 of the judgment, the finding of the High Court regarding rampant corruption and leaking of the question papers was interfered on the ground that no such allegation was made in the writ application. Later on, allegations were made and copies of the question-papers were annexed to the reply of the counter-affidavit filed by the Commission. Thus, in the said case, on facts it was found that the allegation of leading of the question-papers was not proved. That case, in my view, does not in any way help the respondents. 46. It was further submitted that it was not possible for the members of the committee to re-evaluate 1200 copies of the successful candidates of each subject and 100 of unsuccessful candidates of each category within two days and as such the re-evaluation is farce. 47. The re-evaluation was done in presence of the Registrar (Inspection)of this court.17 Experts participated in the re-evalualion, whose names are kept in a sealed cover. The Expert Committee was only to see as to whether the answers were copied from one source and the marking has been done properly or not. For this purpose, I dont think, much time would be taken in examining one answer-sheet. There is no reason for them to submit a false report that they have examined all the answer-sheets. The report of the Experts in physics suggests that they have minutely gone into each answer-books. For this purpose, I dont think, much time would be taken in examining one answer-sheet. There is no reason for them to submit a false report that they have examined all the answer-sheets. The report of the Experts in physics suggests that they have minutely gone into each answer-books. They have found that the examiner in the case of answer-book of private respondent No.90 Manish Kumar being Second Code number 110686 (Roll No.138095) has noticed that answer to question No.2 is identical to Instruction-sheet (Memorandum of Answers ). This shows that the Experts have evaluated each and every answer-book. It was possible for them to examine the aforesaid number of copies within two days. Thus, none of the submissions advanced on behalf of the private respondents to reject {he report of the Expert Committee is tenable. 48. The contents of the report as extracted above clearly show that the private respondents have copied out from a common source i. e. memorandum of answers. If there was mistake in the memorandum of answers, that has also been copied out. The reasons given by the Experts for coming to the conclusion that the private respondents have copied out from one source clearly shows that they have either succeeded in obtaining the answer-books after the examination was over or were supplied with fresh answer-books and, thereafter, they copied out from the memorandum of answers. There is nothing on the top of the answer-sheets after the roll number and names of the candidates are taken out at the time of first coding to show that these answer-sheets have come from a particular centre. 49. This court ordered the Assistant Registrar (Judicial) on 14- 10-1996 to verify the unused answer-sheets kept in the strong room. He verified the same and submitted a report on 25-10-19%. At this stage, it is proper to mention that three writ applications were filed in August, 1996. In C. W. J. C. No.7666 of 1996, the order for sealing of the records in the custody of the co-Convenor was passed on 27-9-1996. During this period, the co-Convenor was the incharge of the records. The report of the Assistant Registrar (Judicial)shows that the total number of unused answer-books according to the statement containing the details of answer-books supplied, used and unused as maintained by the co-Convenor were as follows: Physics 5203, Chemistry 5429, Mathematics 5460 and Biology 0159. During this period, the co-Convenor was the incharge of the records. The report of the Assistant Registrar (Judicial)shows that the total number of unused answer-books according to the statement containing the details of answer-books supplied, used and unused as maintained by the co-Convenor were as follows: Physics 5203, Chemistry 5429, Mathematics 5460 and Biology 0159. On verification, he found 5189 answer-books of Physics, 5431 of chemistry, 5455 of Mathematics and 0159 of Biology. Thus, he found shortage of 14 answer-books in Physics and 15 in Mathematics. He also found few surplus book in Chemistry. He found that some of the unused answer-books of Physics and Chemistry were also found cancelled and returned by the Examination Centre. They did not bear either the serial number or code number in the cover page or title page. 50. The report of the Assistant registrar (Judicial) shows that there was discrepancy with regard to the unused answer-sheets though their numbers were not large, but that will not make any difference as there was enough time to the co-Convenor to manipulate the things after filing of the writ applications and before sealing of the records in the strong room. Admittedly, the answer-books were in the custody of the co-Convenor. The memo of answers were prepared subsequently after the conduct of the examination. Tailing of the answer-sheets of the private respondents with the memorandum of answers leads to only one inference that either the original answer-sheets used at the time of examination or a fresh answer-sheets were supplied by the co-Convenor subsequent to the examination to the examinees and they were provided facilities for copying out from the memorandum of answers. This facility cannot be provided by the co-Convenor, except for extraneous consideration. The Assistant Registrar (Judicial) has found certain number of copies without serial and code numbers. These facts demonstrate that there was a deep-seated conspiracy entered into at some point of time between the co-Convenor, the Minister for Science and technology, the guardians and the candidates as a result of which a deep-rooted fraud and manipulations were done, as a result of which the private respondents were provided facilities to copy out from the memorandum of answers. 51. 51. The proved circumstances noticed above lead to an inference that the private respondents have indulged in unfairmeans by taking recourse to manipulation and fraud and this was done in connivance with the co-Convenor, who has full blessings and cooperation of the Minister, Science and technology Mr. Brij Behari Prasad. 52. The learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that the respondents have not been provided with an opportunity to defend themselves as the report of the Expert Committee has been submitted behind their back and as such the results cannot be cancelled on the basis of those reports. The examination has been conducted by the statutory authority and in case of allegations of tampering with the records, fraud and manipulation, the matter has to be enquired into by the statutory authority, but in this case, as stated above, the allegations were made against the authority itself as well as against the superior authorities, the minister and as the allegations were, prima facie, substantiated at the initial stage and in such a situation, the enquiry could not have been conducted by the authorities or by the Department. This court, accordingly thought to consider the matter on the basis of the materials available on the record and with the consent of the counsel for the state and the co-Convenor took different steps as stated above. Thereafter, the copies of the depositions of the examiners, the report of the Expert committee, report of the Assistant Registrar (Judicial) and all other relevant documents were supplied to them and, thereafter, they filed their show-cause. 53. In support of their submission, the private respondents have relied upon a judgment of the apex court in the case of Board of School \. Ghan-shyam Das, reported in A. I. R.1962 supreme Court-1110. From the facts of the said case, it appears that the result of three students of intermediate was cancelled by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. , Allahabad. The same was challenged on the ground that the result has been cancelled behind their back without affording them an opportunity of hearing. The board took stand that the matter of use of unfairmeans in the examination was referred to a Committee and the Committee acted in exercise of statutory power and as such there was no question of affording an opportunity of hearing. The board took stand that the matter of use of unfairmeans in the examination was referred to a Committee and the Committee acted in exercise of statutory power and as such there was no question of affording an opportunity of hearing. The High Court allowed the writ application on the ground that even if the order is administrative one, the students were entitled to hearing. The board went before the Supreme Court. Dealing with the said matter, the apex court held that if the statutory authority has power to do any act which will prejudicially affect the subject, then although there are not two parties, apart from the authority and the contest is between the authority proposing to do the act and the subject opposing it the final determination of the authority will yet be a quasi-judicial act provided the authority is required by the Statute to act judicially. If no opportunity is given to the examinees to give an explanation to present their case, the order cancelling the examination is vitiated. The aforesaid case was noticed and considered by the apex court in the case of bihar School Examination Board V/s. Sub-has Chandra, reported in A. IR.1970 s. C.1269. In that case, the examination of students appearing in the matriculation examination from one Centre was cancelled on the ground of use of un-fairmeans. The writ application was allowed on the ground that no opportunity was given to the students before cancelling their result. The apex court held that there was no need to give an opportunity to the candidates if the examination as a whole or examination of a vast majority of examinees at a particular centre are cancelled. The principle laid down in the case of Ghan-shyam Das Gupta (supra) is applicable only in the case, where there is a question of charging anyone with use of un-fairmeans. It is relevant to quote paragraph 13 of the judgment, which runs as follows: "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. It is relevant to quote paragraph 13 of the judgment, which runs as follows: "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 unfairmeans 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 anyone 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 enquiry 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. " 54. In the case of Hira Nath V/s. Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi, reported in A. IR.1973 S. C.1260, some of the students of the Ranchi Medical college were expelled on the ground of indecent behaviour with the inmates of the Girls hostel. An enquiry was conducted against them. In that case, a committee was constituted which recorded the statements of the Girls students behind the back of the expelled students and, thereafter, conducted enquiry after giving an opportunity to the students and on the basis of the report submitted by the Committee, the competent authority passed an order for expulsion. Neither the copies of the statements of the Girls students recorded by the Committee behind the back of the expelled students nor the enquiry report were furnished to the candidates. It was challenged that the non-supply of same amounted to breach of principle of natural justice. The apex court held that the principles of natural justice are not inflexible and may differ in different circumstances. It was challenged that the non-supply of same amounted to breach of principle of natural justice. The apex court held that the principles of natural justice are not inflexible and may differ in different circumstances. When a proper enquiry is held by an enquiry committee consisting of three respectable and independent members of the staff as appointed by the Principal of the medical College to enquire into the complaint of the inmates of the Girls hostel against certain male students of that College about their indecent behaviour with them in the hostel compound campus during odd rest of night, in such a case the rules of natural justice does not require that the statements of the Girls Students should be recorded in presence of the male students concerned or that the letter should be furnished with the report of the enquiry report. Thus, it is clear that when the examination of entire centre or a large number of students are to be cancelled on the ground of use of unfair means or manipulations, tampering etc. then it is not necessary to comply with the principle of natural justice. 55. However, in this case, as stated above, the private respondents have been afforded enough opportunity as all the documents, which were to be relied against them, have been supplied to them and as such they cannot make a grievance that any material behind their back has been used or relied upon in deciding the present proceedings. 56. So far as the case of the petitioners for re-evaluation of their answer-sheets is concerned, they have asserted that they had done well in the examination. In my view, it is not proper to order for re-evaluation of the answer-sheets of the petitioners, specially when the report of the Expert Committee shows that evaluation of the answer-sheets of the successful candidates or some of the unsuccessful candidates has been done properly so far as award of marks is concerned. Accordingly, the said prayer of the petitioners cannot be allowed. 57. After having considered the matter in detail and after having given careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that each of the proven circumstances, as discussed above, leads to an irresistible conclusion that deep-seated fraud and manipulation were done in the C. E. E. Examination, which benefited the private respondents. 57. After having considered the matter in detail and after having given careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that each of the proven circumstances, as discussed above, leads to an irresistible conclusion that deep-seated fraud and manipulation were done in the C. E. E. Examination, which benefited the private respondents. Manipulation and fraud were done with the active connivance and co-operation of the co-Convenor, respondent No.3, with the full blessing and support of respondent No.4, the Minister, Science and Technology. Thus, selection of the private respondents No.5 to 249 and their admissions in different Engineering Colleges are vitiated and the same have to be cancelled. At this stage, I may mention that the learned counsel for the private respondents tried to arouse sentiment of the court by submitting that they have completed one year of study and at this stage, if their selection and admissions are cancelled, then that will ruin itheir career. The materials discussed above clearly show that they are party to a fraud and manipulation and as such if they are allowed to continue their study, then that will give impetus to other unscrupulous persons to adopt the unfairmeans. Fraud and manipulation vitiated everything and their selection and admissions are also vitiated. Completion of one year study by them is not a ground not to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the selection as well as the admission of private respondents no.5 to 249 are cancelled and the director of Technical Education is directed to intimate all the concerned principals of the Colleges about the cancellation of their selection and admission to different Colleges. The list containing the names of respondents no.5 to 249 shall also be sent to the director, Technical Education, along with this judgment. As about a year has elapsed from the date of the examination in question, it will not be proper to issue any direction to admit other students in place of the private respondents, specially when the examination for admission to the next batch is being held. 58. As about a year has elapsed from the date of the examination in question, it will not be proper to issue any direction to admit other students in place of the private respondents, specially when the examination for admission to the next batch is being held. 58. At this stage, I would like to mention that I have not examined the conduct of the co-Convenor (respondent No.3) and the Minister, Science and Technology (Respondent No.4) for fixation of any criminal liability, but their conduct has been considered in the light of the materials available on the record only with a view to find out as to whether the allegation of fraud and manipulation in the conduct of the examination has been proved or not. As a | result of the fraud and manipulation, private respondents were allowed to use unfairmeans and on the basis of that, they got admission. Bunglings and manipulations were done for extraneous consideration. A detailed enquiry is needed to reveal the truth. This cannot be done in these writ applications and this can only be done if an independent enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation is conducted. 59. In the case of U. P. Junior doctors Action Committee V/s. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani, reported in A. I. R.1991 Supreme Court 909, while cancelling the admission of the candidates having secured admissions in the m. B. B. S. Course in different Medical colleges of Uttar Pradesh on the basis of a fake order of the court, the apex court directed investigation by the central Bureau of Investigation. 60. Accordingly, I direct that the central Bureau of Investigation, Patna, to investigate the matter and submit a report within three months so that an appropriate direction may be given in the matter regarding prosecution of the persons found to have indulged in such activities. 61. Before parting with this judgment, I may state that the importance of education cannot be minimised. The education liberates from ignorance, superstition and prejudice. In the democratic form of Government, it has an important play of role in the sense that it has a social and political necessity. Even in our Constitution, right to education is a fundamental right up to the age of 14 years and, thereafter, the right is circumscribed by the limit of economic capacity of the State. In the democratic form of Government, it has an important play of role in the sense that it has a social and political necessity. Even in our Constitution, right to education is a fundamental right up to the age of 14 years and, thereafter, the right is circumscribed by the limit of economic capacity of the State. If the education is tainted in the sense that the candidates are admitted to the institutions on the basis of fraud and manipulation, then that is sad, bad and unfortunate day for this State as well as for the nation. Meritorious candidates will be deprived from their admission, where, unscrupulous and perpetrators of fraud will succeed. Marcellus in scene V of Act I in Shakespears Hamlet sensed like this : "something is rot ten in the State of Denmark". I am constrained to observe that something is rotten with the examination system in the State of Bihar. This will also be demonstrated by the fact that in this state, the examinations are being conducted in accordance with the directions issued by this court in a Public Interest litigation. The examination for admission to Medical Course of 1996 was can celled on the ground of use ol unfairmeans and later on another ex animation was held. Similar allegations of use of unfairmeans have been levelled against other. examinations these instances give a very bad name to the State and as a result thereof, the stu dent-community as a whole is a sufferer the time has come to take remedia measure to eradicate the adoption o bunglings, unfairmeans and manipula lions in the examination. 62. At this stage, learned counsel for the State informed that the Government has enacted an Act (Bihar Act 15 of 1995) (Bihar Combined Entrance competitive Examination Act, 1995), whereby a Committee has been constituted under the Chairmanship of the member, Board of Revenue to conduct examination for vocational course, which includes Engineering, Medical science, Dentistry etc. He also submitted that elaborate provisions have been made in the Act, which has come into force to prevent use of unfairmeans and manipulation in the examination.1 hope, the authorities will act in the manner as provided in the Act so that it will serve laudable object, for which it has been enacted. 63. In the result, these writ applications are allowed with the aforesaid directions/observations. There shall be no order as to costs. 63. In the result, these writ applications are allowed with the aforesaid directions/observations. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition Allowed.