Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.10.2004, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby he has allowed the writ application filed by the writ petitioner-respondents and directed the Bihar School Examination Board (for short the Board) to take their examination in the concerned subjects on 5.11.2004, on which date the Board has organised examination for different categories of candidates on the ground that such candidates did not receive their Admit Cards as well as on other grounds. 2. The writ petitioner-respondents are admittedly in Government service and are working as untrained Assistant Teachers. The Board fixed a date for conducting Primary Teachers Training Examination and the respondents appeared therein. The Flying Squad visited in the first sitting of the examination on 20.5.2004 at Munger Town High School Centre, where these respondents along with others were appearing in the examination. 18 candidates were found using unfair means and they were referred to the Static Magistrate for taking action. The Flying Squad also found that in the meantime a large number of students came outside and they wanted to release the apprehended candidates and give them freedom to use unfair means. He also found that a large number of students were using unfair means. 3. The Board in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 18 of Chapter V of the Bihar School Examination Boards Regulation, 1964, considered the matter and having found that there was use of unfair means at the said Centre, cancelled the examination of all the candidates of that centre and ordered that they would be allowed to appear in the examination to be conducted in the next session. In the meantime, the Board fixed 5.11.2004 to conduct examination for such categories of students, who could not appear in the earlier examination for the reasons as stated above. 4. In the meantime, the Board fixed 5.11.2004 to conduct examination for such categories of students, who could not appear in the earlier examination for the reasons as stated above. 4. The writ petitioner-respondents came up before this Court challenging the order of the Board, whereby their examination was cancelled by filing a writ application, out of which this appeal arises and the learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, directed that the writ petitioner-respondent be allowed to appear in the examination, which is to commence from 5.11.2004 for different categories of candidates and, thereafter, disposed of the writ application without deciding the main question for the reason that the parties agree that once the writ petitioners and similarly situated other candidates have been allowed to take examination in the concerned subject, there was nothing left to be decided. 5. Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the Board, submitted that the Board is a statutory body entrusted to conduct free and fair examination and to maintain purity and sanctity of the examination is the function of the Board and for that reason power is vested in the Board to cancel the examination under Rule 18 of Chapter V of the said Regulation in case of use of unfair means and other grounds and once the Board having found that unfair means was used in the examination, cancelled the examination and a decision was taken to permit the writ petitioner-respondents and other similarly situated persons to appear in the examination to be conducted in the next session, this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction cannot issue a direction to hold examination before the expiry of the said session. 6. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-respondents, on the other hand, fairly submitted that the Board has power to cancel the examination in case the requirements as provided under Rule 18 of Chapter V of the said Regulation are fulfilled, but the Board cannot act arbitrarily and it has to base its decision on certain materials. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-respondents, on the other hand, fairly submitted that the Board has power to cancel the examination in case the requirements as provided under Rule 18 of Chapter V of the said Regulation are fulfilled, but the Board cannot act arbitrarily and it has to base its decision on certain materials. The report of the Flying Squad does not show that all the students were found to have been indulged in using unfair means, on the other hand, the finding that large scale unfair means was adopted in the examination is based on the assumption that certain students were apprehended while using unfair means and some students came out with a view to get them released and with a view to allow them to use unfair means. He further submitted that once the Board has taken a decision to allow them to appear in the next session and, thereafter, the learned Single Judge has ordered to allow them to appear in the examination, which is to commence from 5.11.2004, then this Court in appeal should not interfere with the aforesaid discretion of the learned Single Judge. He also submitted that the expelled candidates cannot be equated with those candidates, who were not expelled and when the examination of different categories of students is being taken from 5.11.2004, then there is no reason why the writ petitioner-respondents should not be allowed to appear in that examination. He also relied upon the two judgments of the Supreme Court in support of his contention, which will be referred to at the appropriate place. 7. Unfortunately, all is not well with the education system in this State. For one reason or the other, every person associated with the education system is running to this Court. Teachers are rushing for their promotion or against the order of punishment, non-teaching staff are rushing against their termination and students are running against the cancellation of their examination when unfair means and other grounds are alleged. Be that as it may, it is a serious malady for which a direction can be issued in appropriate case. 8. In the present case, the matter is very simple one as indicated above. The writ petitioner-respondents are already employed as teachers and they while appearing in the examination are alleged to have been found using unfair means. Be that as it may, it is a serious malady for which a direction can be issued in appropriate case. 8. In the present case, the matter is very simple one as indicated above. The writ petitioner-respondents are already employed as teachers and they while appearing in the examination are alleged to have been found using unfair means. If the teachers, who hava to maintain purity in the examination, are found to be using unfair means then who will guard them. 9. The main question in this case is as to whether the decision taken by the Board in the aforesaid view is valid or not? In this connection, we may mention that when a statutory body is entrusted to hold examination then that body has to be given freedom to conduct the examination so as to maintain the discipline and purity in the examination. Unless the order passed by the authority is perverse, based on no material, arbitrary and against the statutory provision, the Court will not interfere only on the ground that a different view can be taken on the materials than what has been taken by the statutory authority or the case requires sympathy because the innocent persons will suffer due to cancellation of their examination. 10. In the present case, legal point on this subject is well-settled by catena of decisions. The first case, which has been relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner-respondents is the case of Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad vs. Ghanshyam Das Gupta, reported in A.I.R. 1962 Supreme Court 1110, in which a Constitution Bench held that where an authority exercises quasi-judicial power, principle of audi alteram partem applies and in case of cancellation of result of the students, an opportunity of hearing is to be given before cancellation of their result. That was a case where the results of only three students were cancelled and in that context the said observation was made. That was a case where the results of only three students were cancelled and in that context the said observation was made. Another case relied upon by him came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of the Bihar School Examination Board vs. Subhas Chandra, reported in A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1269 [: 1970 PLJR (SC) 508] and there the earlier case of Ghanshyam Das Gupta (supra) was considered and the Apex Court held that the law laid down in that case related to cancellation of examination of specific students but where the examination has been cancelled or the examination as a whole is vitiated by leakage of papers or by destruction of some of the answer books or by discovery of unfair means practised on a vast scale, then enquiry is not required. In paragraph 14, it was held as follows: "The Universities are responsible for their standards and the conduct of examinations. The essense of the examinations is that the worth of every person is appraised without any assistance from an outside source. If at a centre the whole body of students receive assistance and manage to secure success in the neighbourhood of 100% when others at other centres are successful only at an average of 50%, it is obvious that the University or the Board must do something in the matter. It cannot hold a detailed quasi-judicial inquiry with a right to its alumni to plead and lead evidence etc. before the results are withheld or the examinations cancelled. If there is sufficient material on which it can be demonstrated that the University was right in its conclusion that the examinations ought to be cancelled then academic standards require that the universitys appreciation of the problem must be respected. It would not do for the Court to say that you should have examined all the candidates or even their representatives with a view to ascertaining whether they had received assistance or not. To do this would encourage indiscipline if not also perjury." 11. This is also a well-settled law that if use of unfair means is found at a particular centre then it is not necessary that all the students must indulge in use of unfair means. To do this would encourage indiscipline if not also perjury." 11. This is also a well-settled law that if use of unfair means is found at a particular centre then it is not necessary that all the students must indulge in use of unfair means. It may be that in some cases only few of the students may be using unfair means and others may not, as a result of which even innocent students will suffer but that does not matter for the simple reason that if purity in the examination is to be maintained, some innocent persons may also have to sacrifice. This aspect of the matter was also taken note of by the Supreme Court in the case of Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. vs. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti, reported in (1998)9 S.C.C. 236 and it was held as follows: "It is unfortunate that the student community resorts to such methods to succeed in examinations and then some of them come forward 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 maipractices. One may feel 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 this 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 in charge of the examinations should also take action against their Supervisors/Invigiiators, 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 malpractices." 12. 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 malpractices." 12. In view of the said settled law, now the facts of this case have to be scrutinised to find out as to whether the ecision of the Board is supported by materials on the record or not. The report of the Flying Squad has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the interlocutory application. Paragraph no. 2 of the said report relates to the school in question where the writ petitioner-respondents appeared in the examination. The same runs as follows: IMAGE 13. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-respondents also strenuously argued that on the basis of the said report it cannot be said that there was use of unfair means at a large scale. 14. . We do not agree with the said submission for the reason that from the reading of the report as a whole, it appears that apart from the students having been apprehended, other students were also found to be indulged in using large scale unfair means by the Flying Squad and the Board after relying upon his report has come to the conclusion to cancel the examination of that centre and ordered to permit the writ petitioner-respondents and other similarly situated persons to appear in the examination to be conducted in the next session. 15. . So far as the submission advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner- respondents that the expelled students cannot be equated with the students who were not expelled is concerned, it is suffice to say that when unfair means was found at the centre and some students were not expelled, that does not mean that they were not using unfair means and their cases are to be distinguished from the expelled students for the reason that it was not possible for the Flying Squad to apprehend all the students at one place and at the same time. 16. . The other submission that as the examination of other categories of students is going to commence from 5.11.2004 then why the examination of the writ petitioner-respondents should not be taken along with them does not appeal to us because they fall in two different categories. 16. . The other submission that as the examination of other categories of students is going to commence from 5.11.2004 then why the examination of the writ petitioner-respondents should not be taken along with them does not appeal to us because they fall in two different categories. In the case of the persons whose examination is going to commence from 5.11.2004, they earlier suffered for their no fault, whereas, in the case of the writ petitioner-respondents, their examination has been cancelled on the specific ground of use of unfair means and it is informed that their examination has been ordered to be held in the next session. This Court does not find any arbitrariness or mala fide in the decision of the Board. 17. . The said decision of the Board cannot be interfered with inspite of having a sympathy in favour of the writ petitioner- respondents the reason being that the displaced sympathy ends in miscarriage of justice. 18. . In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside.