JUDGMENT I. M. QUDDUSI, J. — At the very outset it is necessary to mention that as the Court was going to be closed due to the Winter Vacations, it was not possible to deliver the reasoned order due to paucity of time. This Court having heard learned counsel for the parties delivered the operative part of the judgment as under indicating that the reasons to follow : “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed. The decision of the Council of Higher Secondary Education in cancelling the results of History Paper-II (Regular) of +2 Arts Examination, 2005 in respect of Maa Kutam Chandi College, Devidol Centre in the district of Jagatsinghpur is quashed. A writ in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the opposite parties to publish the result of the students who have appeared in the said examination at Maa Kutam Chandi Col¬lege, Devidol Centre in the district of Jagatsinghpur by awarding them marks in History Paper-II (Regular) except in respect of those students for whom the Flying Squad had made recommendation to cancel their examination. The result shall be declared within ten days from the date of service of a certified copy of this order upon opposite party No.3. No order as to costs.” 2. The detailed judgment and the reasons on the basis of which we have arrived at the above conclusion on 22.12.2005 are as under :- The petitioner who was Secretary of the General Body of Maa Kutam Chandi College, Debidol, Dist : Jagatsinghpur has sought to challenge the action of the Opp.Parties in scratching the answer scripts of History Paper-II (Regular) of Annual Higher Secondary Examination, 2005 for +2 Arts in respect of the petitioner-college. 3. Annual Higher Secondary Examination, 2005 for +2 Arts commenced on 2nd March, 2005. The petitioner college namely Maa Kutam Chandi College, Debidol, Dist : Jagatsinghpur was the examination centre for regular candidates. The examination in respect of History Paper-II (Regular) was held on 12.03.2005 in the second sitting i.e. from 2 P.M. to 5 P.M. under the supervi¬sion of the Centre Superintendent and the Observer deputed for the examination. On that day the Central Flying Squad deployed by the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa visited the centre at 3.45 P.M. and found some incriminating materials in the possession of one student namely Sri Satyabrata Nayak, bearing Roll No.122CB110. One Mr. On that day the Central Flying Squad deployed by the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa visited the centre at 3.45 P.M. and found some incriminating materials in the possession of one student namely Sri Satyabrata Nayak, bearing Roll No.122CB110. One Mr. Niranjan Biswal, Lecturer in Commerce, S.V.M. College, Jagatsinghpur who was deputed as Observer, reached at the premises of the examination centre at 12.45 P.M.. It was within his duties to ensure that proper gate checking is done before allowing the candidates to enter into the Examination Hall. The Principal of the institution was appointed as Centre Superintendent by the Council who was an Officer remaining in charge of conducting the examination smoothly. 4. The whole trouble started when the Observer Sri Biswal sent his report to the Council. Some of the particular of his report are reproduced below :- (i) On my entry to Examination Hall, just at the start of the exam. hour an intimidating ridiculous cat-calling and slang comments were heard from the huge crowd gathered around the college with a lines of four wheelers and two wheelers. (ii) Just at 2.30 P.M. rain started and owing to rain and faint darkness all the examinees sat together closer to each other leaving their allotted bench and desks for one hour. (iii) Thereafter candidates are found leaving and changing seats frequently, pulling and snatching answer scripts from others throughout the exam. hours. (iv) Most of the times the Invigilators followed me leaving their own (one) room in a disturbing condition. (v) Invigilators were found in dictating answers inside the examination hall. (vi) All the Invigilators were found indifferent and callous to such mal-activities and oral mal-practice of the examinees. Further it was mentioned by him that as no manuscript is found, it is not possible to mention the roll numbers of candi¬dates. 5. From perusal of the above report it is found that the contents of the report are contrary to each other. If the Invigi¬lators were following the Observer how is it possible that in his presence they could dictate the answers to the examinees inside the examination hall. 5. From perusal of the above report it is found that the contents of the report are contrary to each other. If the Invigi¬lators were following the Observer how is it possible that in his presence they could dictate the answers to the examinees inside the examination hall. If the examinees sat together closer to each other leaving their allotted benches and desks, how it was possible for them to pull and snatch answer scripts from each other throughout the examination hours and in such a situation how could they attempt the question papers and if throughout the examination snatching and pulling of answer books were being done, how was it possible for the Invigilators to dictate the answers to the examinees in the examination hall. Moreover, the Flying Squad which came all of a sudden at 3.30 P.M., did not find any such thing and only found some incriminating materials from one student only. In the report of the Observer it has been accepted that no manuscript was found by him and as such it was not possible for him to mention the Roll Numbers of the candi¬dates. 6. We had summoned the other records also, perusal of which shows that on 04.03.2005 one Sri Narayan Prasad Dash, lecturer in Sanskrit of S.V.M. College, Jagatsinghpur was the Observer in the Centre in question when the examination in English Paper-I (Regu¬lar) was being conducted. We have perused his report, according to which the general conditions around and inside the Examination Hall were found peaceful. No case of mal-practice or misbehaviour was found. 7. On 7.3.2005 one Sri R. C. Panda, senior lecturer, S.V.M. College, Jagatsinghpur was the Observer in the Centre in question when the examination in English Paper-II was being conducted. According to his report also, no malpractice was detected or reported at the centre. No case of misbehaviour by any candidate was found. Centre Superintendent was found coopera¬tive. No invigilators were found abettors to malpractice. 8. On 10.3.2005 one Sri Pramod Kumar Mohapatra, lecturer in Political Science, S.V.M. College, Jagatsinghpur was the Observer in the Centre in question when the examination in Histo¬ry Paper-I (Regular) was being conducted. According to his report also, no malpractice was detected or reported at the centre. No case of misbehaviour by any candidate was found. Centre Superin¬tendent was found cooperative. No invigilators were found abettors to malpractice. 9. According to his report also, no malpractice was detected or reported at the centre. No case of misbehaviour by any candidate was found. Centre Superin¬tendent was found cooperative. No invigilators were found abettors to malpractice. 9. We could not understand as to how all of a sudden in History Paper-II which was held on 12.3.2005, such a situation had arisen as has been reported which was never reported before. But in a situation where the report of the Observer of History Paper-II is self-contradictory, it smells there was something behind the scene for which such a report was prepared by that Observer, more so when we could not find any documentary proof or manuscript in support of his report. As the action of the Council in cancelling the examination involves the future of the students, the same should not have been taken without making a proper enquiry to know the veracity of the report submitted by the Observer. 10. It appears that the Observer has reported that on his entry to examination hall, just at the start of the examination hour an intimidating ridiculous cat-calling and slang comments were being heard by him from some of the persons standing outside the college premises and also that the Principal who was the Centre Superintendent did not take note of him which could be hurtful to his ego due to which such a report was sent by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that all ef¬forts were being taken by the institution, i.e. Maa Kutam Chandi College, Devidol, Jagatsinghpur for ensuring good result of the candidates in the examination in the past and due to this reason the Observer who belonged to S.V.M. College, Jagatsinghpur which is situated nearby the institution in question rivalised and in order to damage its result such a false report was submitted. 11. Be that as it may, since the future of 93 students is at stake and the Examination Committee did not take notice of the contradictory report of the Observer and since the Observers deputed for other days of the examination, i.e., English Papers I & II and History Paper-I etc. had reported calm and quite conduct of the examination, which are contrary to the report of the Ob¬server deputed for History Paper-II examination, we wanted to have a look at the over-all result of the college. 12. had reported calm and quite conduct of the examination, which are contrary to the report of the Ob¬server deputed for History Paper-II examination, we wanted to have a look at the over-all result of the college. 12. We have seen the result sheets of the 128 candidates of the centre and found that 69 of them have been declared failed. Out of them, some candidates had taken History as optional sub¬ject and some others as extra optional. But they have not been allotted any marks in History Paper-II. In History Paper-I some of the candidates have secured upto 51 marks and some have se¬cured only 25 marks. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was mass malpractice in the centre. The examination committee of the Council, however, vide its impugned notification dated 17.5.2005 has cancelled the examination of History Paper-II of Maa Kutam Chandi College, Devidol, Jagatsinghpur along with other institu¬tions given in the list. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 9829 of 2004 (Governing Body, Jambeswar - Mahavidya¬laya, Balasore v. Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa and another) wherein the Council cancelled the examination in English Paper-II of Higher Secondary Examination held in the second sitting on the basis of the report of the Observer which discloses that the members of the staff other than the invigila¬tors were found present and all were creating disturbance in the hall and the Superintendent was not co-operative and did not care to the Observer and was guilty of indifference to the presence of the Observer and also that the Centre Superintendent was himself involved in dictating answers to the candidates of his choice in the Examination Hall. It was held therein by this Court that the Examination Committee appeared not to have applied its mind to the report while taking the drastic decision to cancel the exami¬nation conducted in the centre. The Examination Committee ought to have considered and scrutinized the report with utmost care and caution before taking the decision since it involves career of large number of students. The Supervisor’s report did not speak as to whether the Centre Superintendent was dictating answer to his favoured students appearing in the examination in all the three rooms according to their seat chart. The Supervisor’s report did not speak as to whether the Centre Superintendent was dictating answer to his favoured students appearing in the examination in all the three rooms according to their seat chart. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directed to revise and publish the result forthwith taking into considera¬tion the marks secured by the examinees in English Paper-II. 14. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the Council should have thwarted the report of the Observer deputed for History Paper-II examination being self-contradictory and also contrary to the reports of the observers deputed for other subjects of the examination in the centre in question and the report should have been thrown away. 15. In view of what has been discussed above, the writ application is to be allowed and the decision of the Council of Higher Secondary Education in cancelling the result of History Paper-II (Regular) for +2 Arts Examination, 2005 vide its im¬pugned notification dated 17.5.2005 in so far as it relates to Maa Kutam Chandi College, Devidol, Jagatsinghpur, is liable to be quashed. However, the examinees for whom the Flying Squad had made recommendation to cancel their examination, are not to be benefited by this decision. PRADIP MOHANTY, J. I agree. Application allowed.