ORDER 1. Petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for the relief to declare and publish the results of the students of petitioner school in High School Examination 2002 and Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 2002 submitting that there was no mass copying and the action of the Board in cancelling the examination of the school in question is bad in law. 2. Petitioner is the Principal of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Tikuri-37, Block Gangeo, District Rewa. It is averred that from petitioner's school, 127 students appeared in class X and 177 in class XII. Government Junior High School, Chandeh was the centre for examination. Board had taken the decision as per order A-1 dated 19.6.2002 to cancel the examination on the ground of mass copying, there was no mass copying at the center in question, none of the student indulged in copying, no unfair means was adopted. Reports of Dr. S.K. Pandey have been relied upon by the petitioner who has submitted the reports on 2.3.2002, 4.3.2002, 5.3.2002, 6.3.2002, 7.3.2002, 8.3.2002, 9.3.2002, 11.3.2002, 13.3.2002, 14.3.2002 and 15.3.2002. Naib Tahsildar also inspected as well as DEO, they never made any adverse report against the conduct of the examination. Asstt. Secretary of the Board Shri S.K. Chourasia also inspected the center on 7.3.2002, no adverse report was submitted, thus, petitioner submitted that action, taken by the Board is bad in law. Petitioner submitted representation A-2. Board served a show cause notice A-3, reply A-4 was submitted that was also brought to the notice of the Collector as per representation A-5. Hence, action of the Board is bad in law. 3. Respondents No.1 and 2 the Board of Secondary Education in the return contends that center incharge of examination center Dr. S.K. Pandey on 2.3.2002 sent his report to the Collector, Rewa informing him that the outsiders were actively involved in the examination and the police force was inadequate. It was reported that although invigilators tried to stop copying, but due to the pressure of outsiders, they were unable to do so. Additional police force was required to be provided to prevent copying. Another report was submitted by Dr. S.K. Pandey, Center Superintendent on 4.3.2002 to the Collector informing him that examination center was surrounded by outsiders and anti social elements who were obstructing the examinations. Due to inadequate police force, mass copying could not be prevented. Additional police force was required to be provided to prevent copying. Another report was submitted by Dr. S.K. Pandey, Center Superintendent on 4.3.2002 to the Collector informing him that examination center was surrounded by outsiders and anti social elements who were obstructing the examinations. Due to inadequate police force, mass copying could not be prevented. In case any effort was made to prevent mass copying, the staff could be attacked by the anti social elements. It was further mentioned that many students of private colleges were appearing in examinations, mass copying was being done by them. Center is highly sensitive and extra police force be provided. Thereafter another report dated 5.3.2002 regarding mass copying was sent. It was mentioned that despite repeated requests no action was taken to provide extra police protection and invigilators were unable to prevent large scale of mass copying by the students done with the help of mob of outsiders and anti social elements. It was stated in the report dated 5.3.2002 that the absence of adequate police protection in case they tried to prevent mass copying, there was danger from the persons involved in mass copying. Prayer was made to change the examination center or to provide adequate police force failing which it was mentioned by Dr. S.K. Pandey the center superintendent that he would not be in a position to perform his duties under these circumstances and some other officer may be appointed in his place. The aforesaid reports were considered by the Result Committee of the Board in its meeting dated 1.4.2002 and on the basis of report of Dr. S.K. Pandey, decision was taken to cancel the examination due to mass copying. 4. It is further contended that decision of the Result Committee of the Board is proper and cal1s for no interference. There was sufficient material placed before the Board to record a finding of mass copying. There are contrary reports submitted by the same person Dr. S.K. Pandey that there was no mass copying in the examination center, probably under threat or undue pressure such reports were submitted mentioning incorrect facts. 5. A return has also been filed by respondent No. 3 Buddhasen Tiwari, Principal of Govt. Higher Secondary School, Budawa, Block-Gangeo, District-Rewa. It is mentioned in the return that daily reports were submitted, in daily reports no mass copying is alleged or adoption of unfair means by the students. 5. A return has also been filed by respondent No. 3 Buddhasen Tiwari, Principal of Govt. Higher Secondary School, Budawa, Block-Gangeo, District-Rewa. It is mentioned in the return that daily reports were submitted, in daily reports no mass copying is alleged or adoption of unfair means by the students. There was no complaint of mass copying in substance respondent No.3 has supported the case of petitioner. 6. Considering the conflicting reports submitted by Dr. S.K. Pandey, his presence was ordered. Dr. Pandey is present, he is also heard in person as wel1 as through counsel Shri V.K. Shukla. Dr. S.K. Pandey has filed his own affidavit. It is mentioned in the affidavit by Dr. S.K. Pandey, Center Supdt. that examinations were started on 2.3.2002 and concluded on 19.3.2002. In the report dated 2.3.2002, 4.3.2002 and 5.3.2002 submitted to the Board and Collector inadequacy of the police arrangement was indicated as he apprehended that inadequate police force may result in disorder around the examination center and may lead to use of unfair means by the students. Para 5 of the affidavit filed by Dr. S.K. Pandey, is quoted below in extenso: '5. "Due to the tense (of) atmosphere 1 expressed my apprehension in my report dated 5.3.2002. I intertened (sic) (entertained) the apprehension that students mite (sic) (might) resort to copying and some students were found indulged in copying and I invited the attention of examination superintendent that the students are copying. It is on account of detention of students indulged in copying that I reported as mass copying. In fact students copying were pointed out to the Supdt." 7. It is apparent from the above quoted para 5 that Dr. D.S. Pandey has owned the reports submited by him on 2.3.2002, 4.3.202 and 5.3.2002. It is further mentioned in the affidavit that uncontrolled anti-social elements were present outside the examination center on 5.3.2002 and they were trying to render help in mass copying. Thus, he felt apprehension 9f mass copying and reported to the police station as well as the Collector, thus, it is submitted that all the reports should be read in continuation. 8. Before I advert to the various submissions, it is apt to quote the reports submitted by Dr. Thus, he felt apprehension 9f mass copying and reported to the police station as well as the Collector, thus, it is submitted that all the reports should be read in continuation. 8. Before I advert to the various submissions, it is apt to quote the reports submitted by Dr. S.K. Pandey on 2.3.2002,4.3.2002 and 5.3.2002 in extenso : çfr] ftyk/;{k] ftyk&jhok ¼e-ç-½ fo”k; % dsanz Ø- 32038 ‘kk-iw-ek-fo-] pansg esa ijh{kk çfrosnu fnukad 2-3-2002 ckcr~A mijksDr fo”k;karjxr ys[k gS fd vkt fnukad 2-3-2002 dks bl dsanz esa d{kk 10 dh xf.kr fo”k; dh ijh{kk esa dqy 289 Nk=ksa esa 279 Nk= mifLFkr ik;s x, ,oa 5 Nk=&vuqifLFkr jgsaA ijh{kk dk;Z esa ckgjh rRo ijs’kku dj jgs gSaA iqfyl cy vi;kZIr gSA ;g dsanz vfrlaosnu’khy çrhr gksrk gSA ;fn iqfyl cy çnk; ugha fd;k x;k rks fdlh Hkh le; dksbZ nq?kZVuk gks ldrh gS D;ksafd i;Zos{kd udy jksdus dk ç;kl djrs gSa] fdarq ckgjh rRo ijs’kku dj jgs gSaA /kkjk 144 dk ;gk¡ ij Li”V mya?ku gks jgk gSA Ñi;k çFkfedrk ds vk/kkj ij i;kZIr iqfyl cy çnk; djus dh Ñik djsaA fnukad gLrk{kj 2-3-2002 ¼Mk- ,l ds ikaMs;½ çHkkjh ifj{kk dsanz Ø- 32038 çfr] ftyk/;{k] ftyk&jhok ¼e-ç-½ fo”k; % ijh{kk dsanz Ø- 32038 ‘kk-iw-ek-fo- pansg ds ijh{kk dk çfrosnuA mijksDr fo”k;karjxr ys[k gS fd bl ijh{kk dsanz ij vlkekftd rRoksa dk dkQh teko jgrk gS rFkk ijh{kk esa O;o/kku mRiUu djus dk ç;kl fd;k tk jgk gSA lkewfgd :i ls udy dk vkt ç;kl fd;k] iqfyl cy vi;kZIr gksus ds dkj.k udy jksdus esa i;Zos{kd ,oa dsanzk/;{k vlQy gSA dkQh ijs’kkuh gks jgh gSA ,slh laHkkouk ik;h tk jgh gS fd ;fn udy jksdus dk T;knk ç;kl fd;k x;k rks vlkekftd rRoksa }kjk ge yksxksa ds Åij Hkh geyk fd;k tk ldrk gSA çkbosV fo|ky; esa lapkyd yksx ;g lkjh dk;Zokgh djok jgs gSaA vr% fuosnu gS fd bl dsanz dks vfrlaosnu’khy ?kksf”kr djrs gq, i;kZIr iqfyl cy çnk; fd;k tkos vU;Fkk eSa M~;wVh djus esa vleFkZ jgw¡xkA fnukad gLrk{kj 4-3-2002 ¼Mk- ,l ds ikaMs;½ çHkkjh ifj{kk dsanz Ø- 32038 ‘kk-iw-ek-fo- pansg ¼jhok½ çfr] ftyk/;{k] ftyk jhok ¼e-ç-½ fo”k; % ijh{kk dsanz Ø- 32038 ‘kk-iw-ek-fo- pansg esa lkewfgd :i ls udy djus ckor~ fuosnu gS fd bl dsanz esa ijh{kk esa dkQh vO;oLFkk gSA eSa foxr 3 fnuksa ls bldh lwpuk ns jgk gw¡ fdarq dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh tk jgh gSA ;gk¡ ij dkQh HkhM+ bdV~Bk gksdj lkewfgd :i ls udy djk;h tk jgh gS] dsanzk/;{k ,oa i;Zos{kd ijs’kku gSA eSa bl HkhM+ ls fcuk i;kZIr iqfyl cy ds ugha fuiVk tk ldrk gS ;fn ge dksbZ vU; dk;Zokgh djrs gSa rks eq>s [krjk gks ldrk gSA vr,o vuqjks/k gS fd Ñik djds bl dsanz esa i;kZIr iqfyl cy fn;k tk, ;k fd ;g dsanz lekIr dj dgha vU;= fd;k tk;sA vU;Fkk eSa vkt ds ckn fM;qVh u dj ikÅ¡xkA fdlh vU; vf/kdkjh dks rSukr djus dh Ñik djsaA fnukad gLrk{kj 5-3-2002 ¼Mk- ,l ds ikaMs;½ çHkkjh ifj{kk dsanz Ø- 32038 ‘kk-iw-ek-fo- pansg ¼jhok½ 9. It is apparent from the report dated 2.3.2002 that outside elements were making interference in the examination. From the report dated 4.3.2002 it is clear that mass copying could not be prevented due to paucity of police force and if an attempt was made to prevent mass copying there was possibility of attack on invigilators and the persons who were running private schools were actively involved in all these activities. Therefore, Dr. Pandey had communicated inability in the circumstances to perform his duty any further in case adequate police force was not provided as mentioned in the report dated 4.3.2002. In the report dated 5.3.2002, it is clearly mentioned by Dr. S.K. Pandey that large number of anti social elements had assembled and mass copying was actually taking place due to which center superintendent and invigilators were in great difficulty. If an action was taken, there was danger to their life. Hence, recommendation was made either to change the center or to provide adequate police force, failing which Dr. S.K Pandey indicated his inability to perform his duty any further. 10. After giving the said reports on 2.3.2002, 4.3.2002 and 5.3.2002 all of a sudden in the daily report submitted by Dr. S.K Pandey a somersault was taken and different picture was painted particularly in the report dated 2.3.2002. It is mentioned that examination was completed in a peaceful manner. In the rep011 dated 4.3.2002 it is mentioned that there was no interference by outside elements and examination was conducted peaceful1y. There was no mass copying or copying case was mentioned in the daily report dated 5.3.2002. Dr. S.K Pandey has mentioned that the examination was conducted in peaceful manner, there was no outside pressure. Dr. S.K Pandey has stated that these daily reports were submitted subsequently on 19.3.2002. On a specific query being put to Dr. S.K Pandey, he has stated that these reports dated 2.3.2004, 4.3.2002 and 5.3.2002 were submitted by him on 19.3.2002. It is clear that Dr. Pandey has shown total1y a different incorrect picture in subsequent reports submitted on 19.3.2002. He has filed false affidavit before this Court and has put incorrect facts which are contrary to the reports submitted by him on 2.3.2002, 4.3.2002 and 5.3.2002 to the Collector, etc. Thus, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that Dr. Pandey has shown total1y a different incorrect picture in subsequent reports submitted on 19.3.2002. He has filed false affidavit before this Court and has put incorrect facts which are contrary to the reports submitted by him on 2.3.2002, 4.3.2002 and 5.3.2002 to the Collector, etc. Thus, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that Dr. S.K Pandey, Centre-in-charge is guilty of submitting incorrect reports about these very dates, i.e., 2.3.2002, 4.3.2002 and 5.3.2002 on 19.3.2002. On being required to explain the situation, he has filed incorrect and false affidavit before this Court mentioning incorrect facts contrary to the facts mentioned in the reports submitted to the Collector. Reports submitted to the Collector were I timely and earlier in point of time and there is nothing to disbelieve the facts mentioned in that reports. The reports are irreconcilable. 11. Submission of Shri KP. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is no material to support the case of mass copying. I am unable to accede in view of the overwhelming material in shape of reports dated 2.3.2002, 4.3.2002 and 5.3.2002 submitted to the Collector which were submitted timely subsequently an effort has been made, for the reasons best known to Dr. S.K Pandey to change the version by submitting false daily reports. He has rendered himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with law. Daily reports were not submitted on the day concerned, conduct of sitting over the daily reports and submitting them on 19.3.2002 shows that there is nothing to doubt the first reports. 12. Shri Shukla has submitted that reports have to be read together. The earlier reports were submitted with a view to obtain the adequate police force, actual daily reports were submitted on 19.3.2002, thus, Dr. S.K Pandey cannot be said to be guilty of submitting incorrect reports. The facts mentioned in the above quoted reports which are anterior in point of time are totally irreconcilable from the facts mentioned in the subsequent reports submitted, the argument is totally incorrect untenable and unacceptable. Shri Pandey has not denied the submitting of first reports. It is clear beyond doubt that there was mass copying which was reported to the Collector and to the Board by Dr. S.K. Pandey on 2.3.2002, 4.3.2002 and 5.3.2002, thus decision of the Result Committee is proper and calls for no interference. 13. Shri Pandey has not denied the submitting of first reports. It is clear beyond doubt that there was mass copying which was reported to the Collector and to the Board by Dr. S.K. Pandey on 2.3.2002, 4.3.2002 and 5.3.2002, thus decision of the Result Committee is proper and calls for no interference. 13. In the instant case, there is material to suggest that there was mass copying. Board had accepted it, scope of interference in the case of mass copying is limited as held by the Apex Court in Madhyamik Shiksha Mandai, M.P. v. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti and others 1997(2) JLJ 113 , in para 2 it has been held by the Supreme Comt as under : "We feel a little distressed that in a matter like this the High Court should have interfered with the decision taken by the Board. The contention was that the examination was cancelled on the report of a Naib Tehsildar dated 18.3.1996 who was not authorised by the Board to visit the examination centre. It is irrelevant whether the Naib Tehsildar was authorised by the Board to visit the centre or ot but what is of importance is the fact that he did visit the centre and found the students copying even before the question papers were distributed. This clearly implies that the students were aware of the questions indicative of the leakage of the question paper. The Naib Tehsildar even complained that the teachers did not object to be students entering the examination hall with books and copying material. That would mean that either they were hand in glove with the students or, they were, for some reason not able to stop the students from copying. This is also evident from the report of the Superintendent of the Centre. The Naib Tahsildar states that neither the Superintendent of the Centre nor the invigilators were prepared to interfere and were not able to explain how the students could enter the hall with books, etc. and copy therefrom with impunity. The Superintendent of the Centre states that he had requested the Naib Tahsildar to stay for three hours but the Naib Tehsildar did not stay. The report of the valuer at page 81 also goes to show that there was mass copying. The High Court brushed it aside as subsequent material. and copy therefrom with impunity. The Superintendent of the Centre states that he had requested the Naib Tahsildar to stay for three hours but the Naib Tehsildar did not stay. The report of the valuer at page 81 also goes to show that there was mass copying. The High Court brushed it aside as subsequent material. But it supports the Board's decision and it was improper in a sensitive matter like this to ignore it on such a technical ground. In the face of this material. we do not see any justification in the High Court having interfered with the decision taken by the Board to treat the examination as cancelled. It is unfortunate that the students community resorts to such methods to succeed in examinations and then some of them come foward to contend that innocent students become victims of such misbehaviour of their companions. That cannot be helped. In such a situation, the Board is left with no alternative but to cancel the examination. It is extremely difficult for the Board to identify the innocent students from those indulging in malpractices. One may fee] sorry for the innocent students but one has to appreciate the situation in which the Board was placed and the alternatives that were available to it so far as this examination was concerned. It had no alternative but to cancel the results and we think, in the circumstances, they were justified in doing so. This should serve as a lesson to the students that such malpractices will not help them succeed in the examination and they may have to go through the drill once again. We also think that those incharge of the examinations should also take action against their Supervisors/Invigilators etc., who either permit such activity or become silent spectators thereto. If they feel insecure because of the strong-arm tactics of those who indulge in malpractices, the remedy is to secure the services of the Uniformed Personnel, if need be, and ensure that students do not indulge in such ma]practices." 14. The evil of mass copying has tightened its grip like tentacular octave of octopus on education system particularly in Rewa District plethora of petitions are filed in which mass copying and other irregularities are found. It has become imperative to get rid of education mafia. The evil of mass copying has tightened its grip like tentacular octave of octopus on education system particularly in Rewa District plethora of petitions are filed in which mass copying and other irregularities are found. It has become imperative to get rid of education mafia. Let CID Crime Branch, Rewa investigate the matter and book outsiders involved in mass copying and let investigation be made to fix the responsibility and the circumstances which led to submit the false reports on 19.3.2002 and the persons involved in submitting the same. Let appropriate action be taken and proper investigation be made to take action against the persons who have indulged in such a mal practice. 15. Resultantly, I find no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed. Cost of Rs. 5,000/- is to be borne by the petitioner/institution payable to the Board. Let investigation be completed within six months. .......................