JUDGMENT By the Court—Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 16.12.1999 dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner-appellant. It appears that the petitioner appeared in the intermediate examination of 1998 conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. However, subsequently, on enquiry it was found that the petitioner was involved in mass copying. A show-cause notice was issued and thereafter the Board cancelled his examination. The answer-sheets were produced before the Court and having perused the answer-sheets and record, the learned Single Judge found that the decision of the Board cancelling examination and result is correct. It is not a case where the order cancelling the examination was passed without enquiry or without affording opportunity of show cause and thus the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant however, relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar and another v. Institute of Engineers, AIR 1998 SC 5 argued that the order of cancellation of the examination is not justified, as common answers cannot be a ground to presume that the examinees have indulged in a mass copying with examination. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after giving our serious thoughts to the arguments advanced we do not find any force in the submission. It is not the case of the petitioner-appellant either in reply to the show-cause notice issued by the Intermediate Board nor in the writ petition that he and other students prepared for their examination from the common books and studied together. It is also not the case that the petitioner and other students studied at the place where common answers were taught to them and therefore answer sheets showed similarity. In the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court held as a matter of fact that common answers would not be an evidence sufficient to infer that various examinees have mass copied with the text of the books where they studied from one common source for preparation of their examination There may be cases where the examinees preparing from the same text books have written similar answers. 4. However, there is no such plea raised in the present case by the petitioner-appellant and therefore, the aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the present case. 4. However, there is no such plea raised in the present case by the petitioner-appellant and therefore, the aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the present case. Similarly, in Pawan Kumar and others v. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate, Meerut, 2000 (1) ESC 298, the Hon’ble Single Judge held that there was no striking similarity as such in the answers attended by various examinees and therefore after perusal of the record gave benefit after recording a finding of that similarity in answers was lacking. On the contrary in the case in hand the Hon’ble Single Judge has seen the record and answer sheets and recorded a finding of fact that the copies show common mistakes and therefore the decision of the Board cannot be said to be incorrect. In these circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. This appeal therefore, is without merit and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal Dismissed. ———