( 1 ) IN this case counter and rejoinder - affidavit were filed by the parties. Record of the case was also produced by learned standing counsel at the time of hearing, in compliance of the order dated 29-5-97 passed by this Court. I, therefore, have heard this matter finally at this stage. ( 2 ) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 31-3-1997 passed by respondent No. 2 cancelling the result of Intermediate examination of the petitioner for the year 1996. Prayer for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner of Intermediate examination (Roll No. 374384) has also been made. ( 3 ) BRIEF facts of the case, as transpired from the material on record, are that petitioner appeared as a regular candidate in Intermediate examination for the year 1996. He was allotted aforesaid roll number by respondent No. 2 and was permitted to appear in the aforesaid examination from Agra Sen Inter College, Allahabad. On 11-3-96 when the petitioner along with other students was solving Biology 1st paper, flying squad, at about 3. 30 p. m. , made surprise checking of the aforesaid examination centre. An hand written chit was found lying on the floor of the examination hall. Flying squad declared to have found said chit from the possession of the petitioner. On the recovery sheet, (at page 2 of C. A.-2) it was noted as under :-seet Ke Paas Chit Pai Gai. ( 4 ) IT is signed by members of flying squad namely Sri Dhaneshwar, Kampta Prasad Tripathi as well as by examination superintendent. Answer book originally supplied to the petitioner was taken in their possession by the members of flying squad and the petitioner was supplied second answer book. Thereafter, a charge-sheet dated 16-10-96 was served upon the petitioner on 4-11-96 (as it is evident from the order of Director of Education dated 7-1-97 on the margin of Annexure 5 to the writ petition ). By means of said charge-sheet, petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation by 29-10-1996, with respect to the charge levelled against him. For Intermediate examination, on 11-3-96 regarding Biology Ist paper, following charge was levelled :- naitik Apradh Ka Kirtya Kiya. By means of said charge-sheet, petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation by 29-10-1996, with respect to the charge levelled against him. For Intermediate examination, on 11-3-96 regarding Biology Ist paper, following charge was levelled :- naitik Apradh Ka Kirtya Kiya. Aforesaid charge was elaborated as under :-5. On 11-3-96, during examination hours, one handwritten and two printed pages were recovered from the petitioner. . . . . . . , column No. 2 although tick marked, but not on any one of the specific allegations Nos. 1 to 4. It was apparently vague. Column Nos. 3 and 4 were scored out, which meant that the aforesaid material could not be used in solving any question, nor the same was used by the petitioner. Petitioner, immediately on receipt of the said charge sheet, submitted his explanation on 5-11-1996. Since the result of the petitioner was not declared, petitioner made representation for ventilation of his grievances, on 7-1-1997. Ultimately order dated 31-3-1997 was communicated to him, whereby result of Intermediate examination of the petitioner for the year 1996 was cancelled, on the basis of the aforesaid charge. In the said order, it was noted that petitioner has used unfair means in Biology Second Paper, Petitioner has, thereafter, field present petition challenging the validity of the order dated 31-3-1997. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the respondents, counter-affidavit has been filed, in which facts stated in the writ petition has been controverted and denied. It has been asserted that the decision in the case of petitioner was taken on 30-10-1996, along with the cases of other students by Unfair means Disposal Committee and the same was thereafter, communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 31-3-1997. It was urged that the petitioner committed act of misconduct, inasmuch as, in the aforesaid examination, unauthorised material was recovered from his possession. It was also asserted that in the order dated 31-3-1997, inadvertently it was noted as Biology Second paper and it was asserted that examination of the petitioner was rightly cancelled and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. ( 6 ) PETITIONER field rejoinder-affidavit, denying the allegations stated in the counter-affidavit, reiterating the allegations made in the writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and also gone through the record of the case carefully. ( 6 ) PETITIONER field rejoinder-affidavit, denying the allegations stated in the counter-affidavit, reiterating the allegations made in the writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and also gone through the record of the case carefully. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner, and the findings recorded by respondent No. 2 are contradictory, inasmuch as, charge of use of unfair means was with respect to Biology Ist paper, but in the impugned order it has been held that unfair means were used in Biology second paper. Therefore, impugned order was liable to be set aside. It was urged that the petitioner was not afforded opportunity to explain his case, inasmuch as, charge sheet was served upon him after the date fixed for submission of explanation and also after the date, the decision in the case was taken by Unfair-means Disposal Committee. It was also urged that explanation submitted by the petitioner was at all not considered. Order has been passed on printed form, without application of mind, which is legally not permissible. It was also urged that in view of the guide lines issued by the Board, itself regarding recovery of unfair means material, petitioner cannot be said to have used unfair means in the aforesaid examination. Therefore, writ petition was liable to be allowed with special costs, inasmuch as, on account of impugned order, one precious year of the petitioner was ruined. ( 8 ) ON the other hand, learned standing counsel submitted that before the explanation was submitted by the petitioner decision in his case was already taken by Unfair-means Disposal Committee, and his examination was rightly cancelled on the charge of use of unfair-means, as recovery of unfair means from the possession of the petitioner was fully proved from the evidence on record. It was submitted that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. ( 9 ) I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. ( 10 ) IT may be noted that in the present case, not only the respondent No. 2, but even learned standing counsel, have acted in highly, irresponsible manner, inasmuch as, paragraph Nos. 3 to 29 of the counter-affidavit have been verified on the basis of legal advice received by the deponent of the counter-affidavit. ( 10 ) IT may be noted that in the present case, not only the respondent No. 2, but even learned standing counsel, have acted in highly, irresponsible manner, inasmuch as, paragraph Nos. 3 to 29 of the counter-affidavit have been verified on the basis of legal advice received by the deponent of the counter-affidavit. In view of the said verification contents of writ petition remained unrebutted and uncontroverted and, I have got no option but to rely upon the facts as stated in the writ petition. Facts stated in paragraph Nos. 3 to 29, could not be legally verified on the basis of legal advice. In the guidelines issued by respondent No. 2 for dealing with the unfair means cases, at page 16 of the paper book (Annexure 2 to the writ petition), it has been noted as under:- ( 11 ) A plain reading of the aforesaid note reveal that a candidate shall be held to be in possession of unfair means if material is recovered from his answer book, from his desk, from inside the table or on the table/stool/chair or from his pocket or from any part of the body, any material found lying near the desk, table etc. shall be treated to be in possession of the candidate only if it is verified that the same was used by the candidate. In the present case, it is apparent from the recovery sheet contained in Annexure-CA-2 (page No. 2), that chit in question was found lying near the seat of the petitioner. However, in the charge sheet while giving details of the charge in column Nos. 3 and 4, it has specifically been noted that the said chit could not be used/utilized for solving any question, and that the same was not used by the petitioner in solving the paper in question. In view of the said facts, petitioner cannot be said or held to be in possession of unauthorized material/unfair means. Therefore, respondent No. 2 had no justification to implicate the petitioner in the case of unfair means, and to punish him for the same. In view of the said facts, petitioner cannot be said or held to be in possession of unauthorized material/unfair means. Therefore, respondent No. 2 had no justification to implicate the petitioner in the case of unfair means, and to punish him for the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also right in his submission that the petitioner was not afforded opportunity to explain the charge leveled against him, in as much as, charge sheet was delivered to the petitioner on 4-11-1996 (see Annexure-5 to the writ petition), as it is evident from the endorsement made on 7-1-1997 by the Director of Education on the representation of the petitioner, contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. According to the admitted case of respondent No. 2, decision in the case of petitioner was taken by unfair-means Disposal Committee on 29-10-1996 (as it is evident from Annexure-CA-1 ). Thus, the petitioner was deprived of opportunity of hearing to explain his case, which was necessary in the present case, as the petitioner could not be punished without affording opportunity to explain his case. A reference in this regard may be made to the decision in Shailendra Kumar Srivatsava v Dy. Registrat, Examination, University of Allahabad, AIR 1998 All 101 , wherein practice of passing of orders on printed and cyclostyled form was deprecated and after considering the relevant decisions of apex Court and this Court, it was ruled that the order of punishment cannot be passed without affording opportunity of hearing against any person and that it was obligatory to record reasons for the decision. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner was also right in his submission that the charge leveled against the petitioner was with respect to use of unfair means in Biology I paper. The fndings returned by respondent no. 2 in his impugned order is that unfair means were used by the petitioner in biology II paper. Thus, charge leveled against the petitioner and the findings written against him, are contradictory to each her. It is well settled that the orders passed by the authorities are to be read as the are. Nothing can be added or substantiated by means of affidavit. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of apex Court in Mahindra Singh Gills case ( AIR 1978 SC 851 ). It is well settled that the orders passed by the authorities are to be read as the are. Nothing can be added or substantiated by means of affidavit. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of apex Court in Mahindra Singh Gills case ( AIR 1978 SC 851 ). ( 13 ) THUS, in view f the aforesaid discussion, impugned order dated 31-3-1997 passed by respondent No. 1 deserved to be quashed. ( 14 ) IT may be noted that on account of illegal order passed by respondent No. 2, petitioners one precious year has been ruined. The case has been death with recklessly and in highly irresponsible manner. Therefore, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, operation portion of the judgement was dictated in open Court on 26-2 19988 but on the basis of request made by learned standing counsel matter was reheard and after rehearing learned standing counsel, order dated 26-2-1998 was again maintained. ( 15 ) WRIT petition succeeds and is allowed with costs, which I assets as Rs. 10, 000. 00 (ten thousand ). Order dated 31-3-19997 is quashed. Respondents are directed to declare result of the petitioner within fifteen days from the date certified copy of this order is communicated to respondent No. 2 The amount of costs shall be paid by respondent No. 2 within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order, to him. Petition allowed. . .