Honble SHETHNA, J.–As per the order passed yesterday i.e. on 12.7.1999, learned counsel Shri J.P. Joshi for the respondent has produced the entire record of the case for the perusal of the Court including the admission card of the petitioner-student Miss Archana Goyal and also the confidential report of the examiner. In column 4 of any other article, it is mentioned that admission card on the back of which subject matter was written. The statement of petitioner was recorded on the spot when she was asked about the recovery of same she said `Yes. Next question was that why did you have them with you inspite of clear instructions? (At this stage, it may stated that without admission card a student will not be given admission in the examination hall). In reply to that she had stated that after looking at the question paper she wrote ``ace to ques hurriedly in the examination hall. Third question was ``Did you make any use of them? she said ``No. Fourth question was, ``have you anything to say? she said that in order to just remember the facts and looking to the formula i wrote innocently. (2). The report of invigilator was given at 9.40 a.m. stating that,``I found rele- vant pencil written matter on the back of the admission card. The report of examiners shows that the matter was related to the subject of that paper. However, it is interesting to note that he has stated that ``it was pencil written and considerably erased in transit and a definite opinion cannot be based on its state of legibility, as it stands now, as to its use. He has specifically stated in the report dated 1.5.98 that she had not actually used the material. (3). I have seen the original admission card of the petitioner, on the reference page something was written with pencil. I and learned counsel Shri J.P. Joshi also tried to read out the same even with magnifying glass, but it was not possible for both of us to read as to what was written on it. Because of this only it appears that the examiner has also stated in his report that no definite opinion can be given in view of the state of its legibility. A photo stat copy of the admission card is taken on record. (4). Because of this only it appears that the examiner has also stated in his report that no definite opinion can be given in view of the state of its legibility. A photo stat copy of the admission card is taken on record. (4). From the above, two things are clear that admittedly the petitioner has not made any use of so called material and secondly, even examiner was not in a position to give definite opinion about the material. For satisfying ourselves, I as well as Mr. J.P. Joshi have also tried to read the material stated to have been written by the petitioner on the back of admission card. As stated earlier, with the help of magnifying glass also we were not able to read the same. In that view of the matter, how one can come to the conclusion that the material stated to have been written on the admission card by the petitioner had any relevance with subject paper. The burden is heavily upon the respondent University to prove when it alleged that the material was used or it was brought for its use by the student. (5). Ordinarily, this Court would not interfere in a case where the University has debarred a student for use of unfair means. If, there was a slightest evidence then also this Court would not have exercised its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, from the facts stated above, it is clear that it was a case of ``no evidence. If the examiner himself could not given his definite opinion about the material then I failed to understand that how the University could come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the peti- tioner student found to be proved. (6). Under the interim orders of the Court the petitioner was allowed to appear in M.Sc. Ist Semester and II Semester and accordingly, she was permitted to appear in the examinations also. The prayer made in this petition by the petitioner is to direct the respondents to declare her result of B.Sc. Final year examination, 1998 and to accept her admission form and grant her admission in M.Sc. (Previous) in Chemistry. It is also prayed in this petition that if any departmental enquiry is contemplated or initiated then the same may be concluded as early as possible preferably within one month. Final year examination, 1998 and to accept her admission form and grant her admission in M.Sc. (Previous) in Chemistry. It is also prayed in this petition that if any departmental enquiry is contemplated or initiated then the same may be concluded as early as possible preferably within one month. The enquiry was also held and the charges levelled against her were found to be proved, therefore, her examination of B.Sc. were cancelled vide order dated 26.4.1999. (7). On the facts of this case when this Court has come to the conclusion that there was `no evidence whatsoever against the petitioner then it must be held that order passed by the University on 26.4.1999 canceling the result of the petitioner for B.Sc. Final Examination, 1998 was bad and it has to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed. (8). First prayer was already granted by interim order and she was allowed to appear in M.Sc. 1st Semester and IInd Semester which she has already passed with flying colours. Yesterday i.e. on 12.7.1999. Mr. Joshi has produced the record and according to the same the petitioner has passed in B.Sc. Final Examination, 1998 as well as in M.Sc Ist and IInd Semester. The respondents shall now officially declare the result of the petitioner for B.Sc. Final Examination, 1998 and M.Sc. Ist IInd Semester, 1999. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.