JUDGMENT P. K. TRIPATHY, J. — The above writ application has been filed by seven students through their legal guardians with the following prayer : “Under the above circumstances the petitioners most humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order by quashing the order passed by the opposite party No.1 communicated by the Opposite party No. 2 vide Annexure-2 to the writ application so far as the petitioners are concerned since the petitioners have neither adopted any unfair means nor any allegation to that effect has been made by any concerned and the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to publish the marks secured by the petitioners in the second language English and accordingly to declare the result of the petitioners in its proper prospective; And for this act of kindness as in duty bound, the petition¬er shall ever pray.” 2. Opposite party members except opposite party No.3 are the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and its officers and opposite party No.3 was the Centre Superintendent, Guali High School Centre where the concerned Annual High School Certificate Examination (in short, ‘H.S.C. Examination’) was held in March, 2001. Petitioners case in substance is that the special squad, inter alia, consisting of opposite parties 4 to 6 had no eligi¬bility to conduct or control the examination or to be Member of the Examination Committee and notwithstanding that on 15.3.2001 they appeared at the Guali High School Examination Centre as the members of Special Squad and the opposite party No.6 misbehaved the Centre Superintendent (O.P.No.3) and submitted a report which had no sanction of law and on the basis of that the order, Annex¬ure-2, was passed declaring the 2nd language paper, of which examination was held on 15.3.2001 at the said centre, to be invalid on the allegation of mass mal-practice. Therefore, alto¬gether 184 students appearing in that examination were awarded zero percent (0%) marks and the consequential result followed by withholding their results. In support of that contention regard¬ing misbehaviour by opposite party No.6, petitioners have re¬ferred to Annexure-3, a letter addresses by the Centre Superin¬tendent (O.P.No.3) complaining before the Controller of Examina¬tion about the misconduct of one of the members of the Special Squad. 3. In support of that contention regard¬ing misbehaviour by opposite party No.6, petitioners have re¬ferred to Annexure-3, a letter addresses by the Centre Superin¬tendent (O.P.No.3) complaining before the Controller of Examina¬tion about the misconduct of one of the members of the Special Squad. 3. While opposite party No.3 in his counter affidavit, filed separately, has stated about the examination having been conducted smoothly, he has also alleged about mis-behaviour shown to him by the opposite party No.6. The other opposite party members have filed a preliminary counter affidavit jointly and in that it has been stated that the concerned opposite party members were members of a special squad to check different Examination Centres relating to the proper manner in which the examination was being conducted and on 15.3.2001 at Guali High School Exami¬nation Centre they noticed mass mal-practice on the said second language paper and accordingly they reported the matter and the Examination Committee constituted in accordance with the Regula¬tion took the decision vide Annexure-2 and communicated the same to the concerned High School. In that counter the allegations in the writ application have been denied and correctness of the report is asserted. 4. In a catena of decisions, which the opposite party members have relied, it has been consistently propounded by the Supreme Court, this Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court, that the High Court should not interfere with the conduct of examina¬tion and the decision taken therein unless there is glaring illegalities in the action/order of the Examination Committee or the Board, as the case may be. In the case of the Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha and others, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1269, a case which is mostly similar to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Apex Court, taking into consideration similar fact situation, declined to interfere with the decision of the Board which had cancelled the examination of one of the Centres. In the case of Asit Kumar Panigrahi (in O.J.C. NO. In the case of Asit Kumar Panigrahi (in O.J.C. NO. 4925/92), Sitakanta Das (in O.J.C. 4928/92) v. State of Orissa and others, 76 (1993) C.L.T. 260, considering the report of the Special Squad and accepting that as a proof of mass copying, Hon’ble B.L Hansar¬ia, Chief Justice (as his Lordship then was) speaking for the Division Bench, observed that : “.....If a circumstance is created in which holding of fair and proper examination is ruled out, the same deserves to be viewed as seriously as mass copying, as is this concept ordinari¬ly understood, because in that situation also there is no proper assessment of the merit of the examinee, which is the sole purpose of examination. The need to maintain educational standard and the meaning of offices and professions by really qualified people, which larger public interest demands, should be good grounds to regard those cases where fair and proper examination is not possible as akin to mass copying, which is abhorred be¬cause it does not allow to Judge merit property.” In the case of Srima Pattnayak v. Council of Higher Second¬ary Education, Orissa and another, A.I.R. 1997 Orissa 125, Hon’¬ble Shri A. Pasayat, J. (as his Lordship then was) speaking for the Division Bench held that : “6. The Examination Committee consisting of reputed Profes¬sors and Educationists considering the report placed by the Flying Squad and being satisfied that there was resort to mal¬practice approved the same and directed the results of the exami¬nation of that particular sitting to be cancelled. There is no scope for interference with the decision. The inevitable conclusion is dismissal of the writ applica¬tion, which we direct. No cost.” In the case of Ramgopal Bhadoriya and others v. Secretary, Board of Secondary Education and others, reported in A.I.R. 2001 Madhaya Pradesh 170, Hon’ble Shri Dipak Misra, J. has held that in a case of mass copying drastic action should be taken and awarding of zero percent mark is not required to be interfered with, because the concept of audi alteram partem and principle of natural justice would not be affected. 5. In the case before this Court, there is nothing on record to show or suggest that the report submitted by the mem¬bers of the Special Squad is backed by vengence or ill-will against any person or authority or such a report was submitted with oblique motive or with malafide intention. 5. In the case before this Court, there is nothing on record to show or suggest that the report submitted by the mem¬bers of the Special Squad is backed by vengence or ill-will against any person or authority or such a report was submitted with oblique motive or with malafide intention. In view of lack of any of such circumstances and the fact that report on mass malpractice after being scrutinise has been accepted by the Examination Committee, this Court thus finds no good ground to interfere with the impugned order. 6. Annexure-3 is a copy of letter addressed by the oppo¬site party No.3 to the Controller of Examination of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack. In his counter the opposite party No.3 has not denied to the correctness or otherwise of that letter. It appears from that report (Annexure-3) that though the opposite party No.3 has admitted about unemployed educated youth in quite large number interfering with the examination process either to show their heroism or being there at the instance of parents of some of the students. In that letter though the oppo¬site party No.3 has alleged about indecent behaviour shown by opposite party No.6, but he has omitted to mention the reason behind the same. That circumstance speaks not only about the manner in which the opposite party No.3 as the Centre Superin¬tendent of Guali High School failed to perform his duty but also contributes to the credibility of the report of the special squad. In the case of Susanta Kumar Parida and others v. Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa and others, 77 (1994) C.L.T. 215, Hon’ble A. Pasayat, J. (as his Lordship then was) speaking on behalf of the Division Bench, was pleased to observe that : “5. Purity of conduct soweth the seed of prosperity; but an evil course is the mother of endless ill. Students come to educa¬tional institutions to learn, and pave the way for a bright fu¬ture. To test whether a student is educationally adequate to climb the ladder to the next higher course, examinations are held. Such tests cannot be permitted to degenerate into exercise of “copying” (if we may use that expression). Students come to educa¬tional institutions to learn, and pave the way for a bright fu¬ture. To test whether a student is educationally adequate to climb the ladder to the next higher course, examinations are held. Such tests cannot be permitted to degenerate into exercise of “copying” (if we may use that expression). The Vedas teach that the teacher advises the students as follows : “Swerve not from truth, Swerve not from duty, Swerve not from what is proper and good, Swerve not from auspicious rites and well-being, Swerve not from study and teaching.” (Taittiriyopanishad). But alas ! What a massive fall from the peak of these ideals into deep pits of ignominy, we see around. Teachers, invigilators, and student candidates act hand in glove to make the examinations a mockery. The writ application is dismissed. No costs. 7. It is needless to mention that the opposite party No.3 has not stood the test of a sincere Superintendent so as to guard against mass copy. He thought it prudent to protect himself from an apprehended danger than to perform the duty with sincerity and dedication. It is unbecoming of a teacher, that to a Centre Superintendent, to behave in such manner. In the process of making useful future generation, his job was not less than that of the soldiers defending country’s border. Therefore, the stand of the opposite party No.3 in his counter affidavit stating about a smooth examination being conducted by him appears to be a myth. 8. For the reasons indicated above, this Court finds no reason to allow the prayer in the writ petition. Accordingly, the O.J.C. stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.