1. The petitioners, as regular students of Government High School, Sangla, appeared in Annual Secondary School Examination, 2009 at examination Centre No. 411 Higher Secondary School, Gunthal. The examination was cancelled by the Board of Secondary Education and a fresh date sheet notified for the examination vide No. F (Re-exam-SSE) Reg/W/Z/2009 dated 11th February, 2010 for the said exam. The petitioners aggrieved of decision of the Board to cancel the examination and directed re-examination on the grounds detailed in the writ petition. 2. The writ petition is opposed on the grounds that the decision has been taken in exercise of power available under Regulation 21 of Regulations for examinations. It is pleaded that in terms of the said regulation the Chairman of the Board of School Education - Respondent No. 1 herein, is competent to cancel any examination, partly or wholly, where report is received that unfair means on mass scale were resorted to or the sanctity of the examination was affected on account of mass copying. It is further pleaded that complaints of mass copying were received in respect of examination centres 411, 703,705 and 706 and that analysis of the results having substantiated the complaints, the examination held at all the aforesaid examination centres was cancelled and a decision taken to conduct re-examination of the students who appeared in examination in said centres. Heard and considered. 3. J&K Board of School Education is an autonomous body created under J&K State Board of School Education Act, 1975 with the aim and object to ensure that the education, relates intimately to the development of the potentialities, discovers talent and nurtures and promotes equality of opportunity by providing necessary facilities. The other objectives of setting up an autonomous Board is to raise the standard of living and productivity of the State and achieve closer and willing participation of the people in democratic processes. The establishment of Board reflects the decision to reform, re-organize and reconstruct the existing system of school education. The Board to achieve the above objectives, is saddled with duty to prescribe courses for institutions, prepare curricula and syllabi, to prescribe text books for the elementary, secondary school and higher secondary school examina­tions and above all to conduct public examination for the students who have pursued the secondary school and higher school education courses. The Board to achieve the above objectives, is saddled with duty to prescribe courses for institutions, prepare curricula and syllabi, to prescribe text books for the elementary, secondary school and higher secondary school examina­tions and above all to conduct public examination for the students who have pursued the secondary school and higher school education courses. It is onerous and sacred duty of the Board to conduct the examinations in fair and transparent manner, free from even a remote suspicion of irregularity and entrusted with conduct of an examination, on the grounds of use of unfair means and malpractice in Bihar School Education Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha and ors. 1970 (1) SCC 648 . The Court rejecting the contention that the candidates appearing in the exam­ination, had a right to be heard before the examination, was cancelled, observed: "This is not a case of any particular individual who is being charged with adoption of unfair means but of the conduct of all the examinees or at least a vast majority of them at a particular centre. If it is not a question of charging any one individually with unfair means but to condemn the examination as ineffective for the purpose it was held. Must be board given an opportunity to all the candidates to represent their cases. We think not. It was not necessary for the board to given an opportunity to the candidates if the examinations as a whole were being cancelled. The Board had not charged any one with unfair means so that he could claim to defend himself. The examination was vitiated by adoption of unfair means on a mass scale. In these circumstances it would be wrong to insist that the board must hold a detailed inquiry into the matter and examine each individual case to satisfy itself which of the candidates had not adopted unfair means. The examination as a whole had to go." 4. The law was reiterated in Chairman, J&K State Board of School Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik (2000) 3 SCC 59 :2010 (5) JKJ 530 (SC) in following words:- "While judging the authority or otherwise all steps taken by authorities of the Board to take action against candidates taking part to mass malpractice it should be borne in mind that the Board is entrusted with the duty of maintaining higher standards of education and proper conduct of exami­nations. It is an expert body consisting of persons coming from different walks of life who are engaged in or interested in the field of education and have wide experience. The decision of such an expert body should be given due weight age by courts." 5. For the reasons discussed and in view of the settled legal position, challenge to Notification No. No. F (Re-exam-SSE) Reg/W/Z/2009 dated 11th February, 2010, is bound to fail. Viewed thus, the writ petition is dismissed.