JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The petitioner has come up in this writ petition for the following reliefs : "(1) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 5.12.2005 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition). (2) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to issue pass certificate of High School examination 1997 to the petitioner without any favour only one other order. (3) issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (4) award cost of the petition to the petitioner.” 3. By order dated 9.5.2006, learned Counsel for the petitioner was granted time for filing rejoinder affidavit by 16.5.2006. On that date he again prayed a week time for filing rejoinder affidavit. It was allowed. Now when the case is listed today after about 20 days, still no rejoinder affidavit has been filed and the Counsel for the respondents is praying for further time, which is rejected. 4. By impugned order dated 5.12.2005, the result of the petitioner has been withheld for mass copying and cancelled for submitting forged T.C. and mark sheet for admission in High School Examination, 1997. 5. It appears from the paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner had taken admission on the basis of forged T.C. and mark-sheet. An investigation was conducted and it was found that the result of the 1043 candidates was withheld for taking admission on the basis of forged T.C. and mark-sheet and result of 92 candidates withheld for mass copying who had appeared from Vijay Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Chaukari Chaura, Ghazipur. 6. The petitioner had taken admission in the aforesaid college on the basis of forged T.C. and mark-sheet and his result was also withheld for mass copying. After investigation the result of the petitioner was cancelled for the aforesaid illegality. The averments made in the counter affidavit are unrebutted. 6. The petitioner had taken admission in the aforesaid college on the basis of forged T.C. and mark-sheet and his result was also withheld for mass copying. After investigation the result of the petitioner was cancelled for the aforesaid illegality. The averments made in the counter affidavit are unrebutted. Paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit is as follows:- Þ3 ;g fd ;kfpdk dks izLrkoj vk[;k nsus ls iwoZ ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds laKku esa dqN egRoiw.kZ rF;ksa dk voyksdu “kiFkdrkZ ykuk pkgrk gS tks fuEuor gS % ;g fd gkbZLdwy ijh{kk o’kZ 1997 ls lEcfU/kr ;kph ijh{kkFkhZ fon~;k “kadj fnudj vuqØekad 1348185 ds iz/kkukpk;Z fot; m0 ek0 fo0 pkSdM+h pkSjk xkthiqj }kjk QthZ Vh0 lh0 ds vk/kkj ij voS/k ,oa vfu;fer izos”k ds laca/k esa f”k{kk funs”kd egksn; ds i= la[;k&Mh0bZ0 2636@96&97 fnukad 25-1-1997 ds vk/kkj ij rRdkyhu ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd] xkthiqj }kjk tk¡p dh xbZA ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd dh tk¡p vk[;k ds vk/kkj ij 1043 ijh{kkFkhZ;ksa dk ijh{kkQy vfu;fer izos”k ds dkj.k lwph MCY;w0 bZ0 ,oa lkewfgd udy ds vkjksi esa dqy ¼92½ ijh{kkFkhZ;ksa dk ijh{kkQy lwph MCY;w0 ch0 esa jksd dj dk;Zokgh dh xbZ gSA ;kph ijh{kkFkhZ vuqØekad 1348185 dk ijh{kkQy lwph MCY;w0 bZ0 ,oa MCY;w0 ch0 nksuksa esa jksdk FkkA ifj’kn }kjk ;kph ijh{kkFkhZ dk ijh{kkQy lwph MCY;w0 bZ0 ,oa MCY;w0 ch0 nksuksa ds vUrxZr fujLr ¼jn~n½ fd;k tk pqdk gSA bl dk;kZy; ds i=kaad@ek0 f”k0 ifj0@{ks0 dk0ok0@vk{ksi 381 fnukad 22-7-98 ,oa i=kad ek0 f”k0 ifj0@{ks0 dk0ok0@xksi05@910 fnukad 12-1-98 }kjk MCY;w0 bZ0 ,oa MCY;w0 ch0 esa fn;s x;s fu.kZ; dh lwpuk izsf’kr fd;k tk pqdk gS i=kad 361 fnukad 22-7-98 }kjk izsf’kr fu.kZ; i= esa ?kksf’kr vuqØekad dh lwph esa vuqØekad 1348181 dks vksoj jkbfVax dj vuqØekad 1348185 cuk;k x;k gSa tcfd vuqØekad 1348185 ijh{kkQy dh lwph esa gSA bl izdkj ;kph ijh{kkFkhZ }kjk QthZ ,oa voS/k vad i= fo|ky; ls cuokdj ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn esa ;kfpdk la[;k 59269@05 ;ksftr dj viuk gkbZLdwy 1997 dh izek.ki= dh ekax fd;k x;kA ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds vkns”k fnukad 6-9-05 ds vuqikyu esa ;kph ls izR;kosnu izkIr dj izdj.k dh xgu tkapksijkUr ;kph dk izR;kosnu fujLr djrs gq, izdj.k dk fuLrkj.k fd;k x;kA fu.kZ; dh lwpuk bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad gkbZLdwy izek.ki=@oh 2680, fnukad 5-12-05 }kjk izsf’kr fd;k tk pqdk gSA iqu% QthZ vadi= ds vk/kkj ij vius izek.ki= dh ekax fd;s tkus gsrq ;kph ijh{kkFkhZ us ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn esa ;kfpdk la[;k&15157@2006 ;ksftr fd;k x;k gSA mijksDr foo`fRr ,oa laf{kIr bfrgkl miyC/k vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij rS;kj dh xbZ gSA blds vfrfjDr dqN dguk “ks’k ugha gSAß 7. The petitioner has come up in this writ petition praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 5.12.2005 passed by the Zonal Secretary Intermediate Education Board, U.P. Zonal Office, Varanasi/Secretary Intermediate Board, U.P., Allahabad by which his result has been withheld and examination cancelled for mass copying and taking admission on the basis of forged documents. The impugned order is as under : Þdk;kZy; {ks=h; lfpo] ek/;fed f”k{kk ifj’kn] {ks=h; dk;kZy; okjk.klhA i=kad ek0 f”k0 i0@{ks0 dk0ik0@gkbZ0 izek.ki=@ fnukad ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn esa ;ksftr ;kfpdk la[;k 59295@2005 fo|k”kadj fnudj cuke mÙkj izns”k jkT; ,oa vU; esa ikfjr vkns”k fnukad 6-9-2005 ds lkFk izkIr ;kph ds izR;kosnu fnukad 23-9-2005 tks bl dk;kZy; esa fnukad 24-9-2005 dks izkIr gqvk dk fuLrkj.kA fuLrkj.k ;kph fo|k”kadj fnudj us gkbZLdwy ijh{kk o’kZ 1997 esa Jh fot; mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky; pkSdM+h pkSjk xkthiqj ls vuqØekad 1348185 ls lfEefyr gqvk FkkA QthZ Vh0 lh0 gksus dh f”kdk;r ds vk/kkj ij rFkk udy djus ds vkjksi ds dkj.k ;kph dk ijh{kkQy lwph MCY;w0 bZ0 rFkk MCY;w0 ch0 ds vUrxZr jksd dj izdj.k dh tkap dh xbZA vkjksiksa dh iqf’V gksus ds dkj.kuqlkj ;kph }kjk izLrqr rFkkdfFkr vadi= QthZ gksus ds dkj.k ;kph dk izR;kosnu fujLr dj izdj.k dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tkrk gSA ¼vks0 ih0 f}osnh½ {ks=h; lfpo i`’Bkadu la[;k % ek0f”k0i0@{ks0dk0ik0@2680 A rn~fnukad 5-12-05 mijksDr fuLrkj.k dh izfrfyfi fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ izsf’krA 1- ;kph fo|k”kadj fnudj vkRet Jh f}tjkt jke xzke&fllkSjk] iksLV vnlkn] pUnkSyh 2- fucU/kd] ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkcknA 3- lfpo] ek/;fed f”k{kk ifj’kn] m0 iz0 bykgkcknA 4- milfpo] lekns”k] ek0f”k0i0 {ks=h; dk;kZy;] okjk.klhA {ks=h; lfpoAß 8. The contention of the petitioner is that before cancellation of his examination he has not been granted opportunity of hearing as such the impugned order dated 5.12.2005 is arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. 9. It is further urged that by order dated 22.7.1998 the respondents directed the Principal to supply the mark-sheet to the petitioner and on the other hand states the mark-sheet to be forged one. It is submitted that the petitioner on basis of the High School pass mark-sheet issued by the Principal and continued his studies and has passed Intermediate and B.A. Examination as such the respondents are estopped from taking a stand at this stage that the admission was taken by the petitioner in Intermediate and B.A. was on basis of forged documents and that he is not High School pass. It appears from the averments made in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that petitioner appeared in the High School examination 1997 with roll No. 1349185 from B.H.S. School, Chaukadi Chaura, Ghazipur as a regular student but his result was held withheld as W.E./W.B. after enquiry conducted into the matter by the authorities. The letter dated 22.7.1998 said to have been issued by respondent No. 2 directly the Principal to issue mark-sheet of the students where roll No. was given therein is appended as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. It is as under : Þi=kad&ek0f”k0i0@{ks0dk0ok0@vk{ksi@361 fnukad 22-7-98 fo"k; %&o’kZ 1997 esa vkids fo|ky; esa MCY;w0 bZ0@,Q0 esa jksds x;s ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa ds ijh{kkQy ds fu.kZ; ds laca/k esaA egksn;] mifjfo’k;d ifj’kn dks gkbZLdwy@b.Vj laLFkkxr@O;fDrxr ijh{kk 1997 gsrq vkids fo|ky; ls vxzlkfjr@iathÑr ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa esa MCY;w0bZ0@,Q0 esa :ds ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa ds ijh{kkQyksa ds vuqca/k esa lfefr@lHkkifr ek0f”k0i0] }kjk fu.kZ; fy;k tk pqdk gSA lfefr@lHkkifr ek0f”k0i0 }kjk fy;s x;s fu.kZ; dh lwpuk vkidks bl vk”k; ls izsf’kr gS fd vki Ñi;k fuEu vafdr vuqØekad ds ijh{kk jksdk x;k MCY;w0bZ0@,Q0 vafdr gS mls dkV dj mlds LFkku ij ijh{kkQy ?kksf’kr dks fy[kdj viuk gLrk{kj dj nsa rFkk fu.kZ; dh lwpuk rRdky ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dks fyf[kr :i ls nsus dk d’V djsaA mDr ds laca/k esa ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd ftu ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa ds ijh{kkQy ?kksf’kr fd;s x;s gSa ;fn muds ijh{kkQy fdlh vU; lwph esa jksds x;s gksa rks muds vad iznku djkfi u iznku djsaA fuEufyf[kr ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dks gkbZLdwy@b.Vj ijh{kk 1997 ?kksf’kr fd;s tk;saA gkbZLdwy vuqØekad %&1347816] 926] 437] 960] 962] 972] 984] 993] 899] 1348018] 022] 030] 026] 081] 062] 087] 117] 119] 121] 136] 142] 143] 149] 155] 161] 169] 185] 186] 194] 1349997] 1350] 1217] 517] 1365] 757] rFkk 761 ,oa 134] 3044A b.Vj vuqØekad& “kwU; 1347] 1347] 1347 1348] 142] 087] 081] 030&Vh0 vkj0 lh0ß 10. A perusual of the roll numbers given in the aforementioned letter shows that the roll number of the petitioner is not mentioned therein. A further perusal of Annexure 2 to the writ petition shows that the marksheet of High School pass said to be issued to the petitioner by the Principal bears roll No. 1348185 i.e. all other particulars of the petitioner are correct except the roll number which has been endorsed on his alleged pass marksheet and which incidentally is one mentioned in letter dated 22.7.1998 for declaration of the result. 11. 11. Admittedly the roll number of the petitioner is 1349185 and not 1348185. It is observed that the marksheet has been got issued fraudulently by the petitioner of another student in which investigation has already been made by the Parishad. 12. In so far as question of violation of principles of natural justice is concerned suffice it to say that all investigation is matter of record i.e. whether the roll No. 1348185 and the marks on the marksheet are of the petitioner bearing roll No. 1349185 or not. 13. Since the result of the petitioner has been cancelled for committing forgery, no mandamus can be issued directing to the respondents to issue pass mark-sheet and certificate of High School Examination, 1997 to the petitioner as prayed by him, however as the petitioner has passed Intermediate and B.A. examination, it would be proper to direct the respondent No. 2 to ensure whether roll No. 1348185 has been inadvertently/wrongly/by mistake written on the marksheet of the petitioner and that marks shown therein have in fact been awarded to the petitioner bearing roll No. 1349185 as claimed by him. 14. For the reasons stated above, petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to verify the application form of both the aforesaid roll numbers. The signatures and photograph as well as marks in the register be tallied with the pass marksheet issued to him as claimed by him. If the petitioner has passed, his result shall be declared and is not withheld for mass copying. Order Accordingly. ———