JUDGMENT : M.M. Das, J. - The Petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions are regular and ex-regular students of Dr. R.C.S. Institute of Science and Technology, Gania. They were the examinees in the Annual +2 Science Examination, 2008 conducted by the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa (for short, 'the C.H.S.E.'). The Petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the C.H.S.E. in cancelling the examination in Chemistry (Regular) and Chemistry-I (Ex-regular) paper in which the Petitioners appeared and in awarding "00" mark to the Petitioners in the said subject on the ground of mass mal-practice adopted by the examinees. 2. Mr. Swain, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 9042 of 2008 and other learned Counsel for the Petitioners in other writ petitions contend that the notification dated 20.5.2008 under Annexure-1 in W.P. (C) No. 9042 of 2008 is unsustainable in law as the same is based on no material and the Examination Committee of the C.H.S.E. had no basis to resolve that mass mal-practice was adopted by the examinees while appearing in the aforesaid Chemistry paper. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the C.H.S.E. in W.P. (C) No. 9042 of 2008 in which a report of the Flying Squad, which visited the centre at 10.07 A.M. and stayed there till 2.00 P.M. has been quoted in paragraph-4 thereof. Again in the said paragraph, it has been stated that the Central Squad reached the centre at 12.15 P.M. and stayed there till 1.40 P.M. The first squad, which reached at 10.07 A.M. at the examination centre reported that when they reached the main entrance gate of the examination centre, they found that the gate was locked. They observed that it was a deliberate attempt to detain the Flying Squad for some time. They found outsiders were standing near the windows of the examination halls and by the time they reached, the examination already commenced before the schedule time. On the verandah of the examination hall, they collected 42 number sheets of paper of incriminating materials lying on the floor. They also found that competent invigilators were not present in the examination hall. Five examinees were found to be adopting mal-practice from whom incriminating materials were seized and sent to the Deputy Controller of Examinations, C.H.S.E. through Central Flying Squad. Some of the Admit Cards possessed by the candidates were without photographs etc. They also found that competent invigilators were not present in the examination hall. Five examinees were found to be adopting mal-practice from whom incriminating materials were seized and sent to the Deputy Controller of Examinations, C.H.S.E. through Central Flying Squad. Some of the Admit Cards possessed by the candidates were without photographs etc. They also reported with regard to deficiency in proper sitting arrangement and poor quality of furniture. The Central Squad which visited the centre at 12.15 P.M. on 11.3.2008 found about 25 outsiders at the college gate. They found a chaotic situation in the said examination hall and the invigilators were mute observers. Sufficient numbers of lecturers were not available for invigilation duty. As a matter of fact, the report of the Central Squad is similar to the report of the Flying Squad which visited the centre earlier to the visit of the Central Squad. 4. learned Counsel for the Petitioners vehemently urge that in view of the fact that only five candidates were found to be indulged in mal-practice and incriminating materials were recovered from them, the Examination Committee could not have come to the conclusion that mass mal-practice was adopted in the centre while the Petitioners were appearing in the Chemistry Paper. 5. Mr. Jena, learned Counsel for the C.H. S.E., on the contrary, submits that on the face value of the reports submitted both the squads, it would be apparent that all the examinees were adopting mal-practice. 6. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that unless concrete materials are available to show that all the candidates in general adopting unfair means, the Examination Committee should not award "00" mark to all such candidates on the basis of presumption and inferences based on no materials. 7. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the Controller of Examinations has filed an affidavit in W.P. (C) No. 9042 of 2008 enclosing thereto the report of the Squad submitted before the C.H.S.E. From the said report, it appears that in column 19, it has been stated that the Centre Superintendent was co-operative and the invigilators were not abettors to mal-practice. 8. In the case of Indira Gandhi Mahila Mahavidyalaya and Another Vs. The Council of Higher Secondary Education and Others a Division Bench of this Court had the occasion to deal with a case almost similar to the facts of the present. 8. In the case of Indira Gandhi Mahila Mahavidyalaya and Another Vs. The Council of Higher Secondary Education and Others a Division Bench of this Court had the occasion to deal with a case almost similar to the facts of the present. Perusing the report of the Flying Squad in the said case, where they reported that when they entered inside the two examination halls, they heard murmuring sounds, some of the examinees threw away some incriminating materials outside the halls, but on personal search of all candidates, they found incriminating materials from 12 examinees and those 12 were individually book for mal-practice, the invigilators were inactive and silent spectators, gossiping amongst themselves and did not conduct the examination in a fair way, the Bench observed that there is no report as to what the Squad observed inside the hall or as to whether the examinees were adopting mal-practice by copying. It further observed that there is no whisper in the report as to the observation of the Squad relating to the manner in which and the circumstances under which, they came to observe that the examinees were adopting unfair means. It has been laid down in the said decision that the examining authority while taking drastic step of canceling the examination must be satisfied that the examination conducted in the centre was not in accordance with the norms prescribed and that vast majority of the students were adopting mal-practice which was not practicable for the Squad to detect. Finding thus, the Division Bench quashed the decision of the C.H.S.E. with regard to canceling the entire examination except in respect of 12 candidates, who were book individually for adopting mal-practice. As early as in 1993, another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Ram and Others Vs. Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa and Others while stating that the power of the C.H.S.E. to cancel the examination at the centre of being satisfied that there was mass mal-practice during the examination in question cannot be disputed, laid down that such discretion or decision is to be exercised on proper consideration of the materials on record particularly the reports of the invigilators/Centre Superintendent/Members of the Flying Squad, who visited the Centre during the examination. The Division Bench further laid down that such report should reveal that there was large scale mal-practice by the examinees. The Division Bench further laid down that such report should reveal that there was large scale mal-practice by the examinees. It was also laid down that the examining body while taking such decision should closely scrutinize the facts and circumstances of the case as revealed from the materials and should have good reason to be satisfied that the case warrants drastic action. Considering the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Bench came to the conclusion that the circumstances of the case fall far short of the requirements/tests for taking the extreme step to cancel the examination at the centre. (Emphasis supplied) It is inevitable that if the Examination Committee without applying its mind and basing on surmises and conjectures takes a decision to cancel the examination in its entirety in a centre, the genuine brilliant students, who, if appearing in the said examination and giving their answers in a fair manner, are bound to be affected. Applying the above ratio as laid down by this Court in the cases of Indira Gandhi Mahila Mahavidyalaya and Anr. (supra) and Sri Sanjaya Kumar Ram and Ors. (supra) to the facts of this case, it would be seen that there was nothing in the reports submitted by the Flying Squad so as to concretely show that the Petitioners in mass adopted mal-practice. As a matter of fact, in column 16 of the report submitted by the Flying Squad, the Squad has mentioned as follows.- Detected by the nodal Squad members in our presence (05 Nos. of MP. cases) This itself shows that only five candidates were detected to have adopted mal-practice from whom incriminating materials were recovered. 9. In this view of the matter, the decision of the Examination Committed, pursuant to which, the notification dated 20.5.2008 under Annexure-1 was issued canceling the result in the Chemistry Paper of the Petitioners appearing in Annual +2 Science Examination, 2008 is found to be not based on any concrete materials produced before them so as to come to the conclusion that the Petitioners were involved in mass mal-practice. The notification dated 20.5.2008 under Annexure-1 to the writ petition, being W.P. (C) No. 9042 of 2008, therefore, cannot be sustained being based on surmises and conjecture and being found to be without due application of mind. The notification dated 20.5.2008 under Annexure-1 to the writ petition, being W.P. (C) No. 9042 of 2008, therefore, cannot be sustained being based on surmises and conjecture and being found to be without due application of mind. The said notification dated 20.5.2008 under Annexure-1 to the writ petition, being W.P. (C) No. 9042 of 2008 is quashed and the C.H.S.E. is directed to declare the result of the Petitioners, except five candidates, who were booked individually for adopting mass mal-practice, by awarding marks to the Petitioners, as evaluated by the examiners in the Chemistry Paper, which has been cancelled. Such results shall be declared within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by any of the Petitioner before the Controller of Examinations, C.H.S.E., Orissa, Bhubaneswar - opp. Party No. 2. 10. In the result, all the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules in course of the day. Final Result : Allowed