Judgment :- The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 03.05.2012 withdrawing the examination centre from the petitioner School for Class X and Class XII public examinations permanently. 2. The petitioner is an Aided School, claims to have been established in the year 1974 by the Carmelite Sisters of St.Teresa and it is claiming to be a minority School having a strength of 4000 students with 100 teaching staff and 25 non teaching staff. 3. The petitioner School was notified as examination centre for conducting public examination of Class X from 1984 and Class XII from 1994. Class X public examination was conducted in April 2012 in the petitioner School. According to the petitioner, Government teachers working in various places were posted as Invigilators in the School. On 16.04.2012, when Mathematics examination was conducted, the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, with 20 officials made a surprise visit to the examination centre and recovered incriminating materials from the Invigilators and submitted a report on the same day by letter No.D2/11771/2012 dated 16.04.2012 to the Chief Educational Officer, Tiruvannamalai, for taking appropriate action. 4. Based on the report submitted by the District Collector, action was initiated by the Education Department pursuant to which a show cause notice dated 17.04.2012 was issued to the Principal of the School by the Management on 18.04.2012 calling an explanation and thereafter, she was relieved from the post of Principal till such time the allegations against the Principal are cleared. An intimation was also sent to the first respondent. On 03.05.2012, another explanation was submitted to the first respondent, which was also acknowledged. 5. Based on the report of the District Collector, action was taken to withdraw the examination centre from the petitioner School and impugned order was passed on 03.05.2012 withdrawing the examination centre of the petitioner School for Class X and Class XII permanently. The said order is challenged in this writ petition mainly on the ground that principle of natural justice has not been complied with and the teachers, who allegedly indulged in illegal activities were from Government Schools and the petitioner School is not having any control over the said teachers. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The report of the District Collector, dated 16.04.2012, addressed to the Chief Educational Officer, Tiruvannamalai, points out serious allegations against the petitioner School in the conduct of Class X examination held in April 2012. In the report, it is stated that on receipt of information about the irregularity in conducting the examination, on 16.04.2012, at about 10.00 a.m., the District Collector along with 20 officials made a surprise inspection to the examination centre and found that one Lab Assistant Varalakshmi was taking xerox copies for the answers for the Mathematics question paper in the School xerox machine and the same was personally noticed by the inspection team headed by the District Collector on visiting the School. The office room of the Head Mistress was locked from inside and when the door was knocked, one Lab Assistant namely Varalakshmi opened the door from inside and on entering into the office room, the objective type answers for the Mathematics paper were found in the xerox machine and the answers contained in bits were also found. 20 xerox copies were taken by the said Varalakshmi and when enquired, she informed that another Lab Assistant of the petitioner School namely Periyanayagam asked her to take xerox copies. When the team checked near the xerox machine, answer scripts for the previous four papers were also found, which were xeroxed from textbooks and the same were also hidden. The team conducted enquiry, by recording statements from the said non teaching staff of the petitioner School namely Varalakshmi and Periyanayagam. 8. The second fact, which was found by the surprise inspection team headed by the District Collector, was that when they visited the examination halls, hall-wise, one teacher named Dhanapal, was in examination duty and in his pant pocket, there was a small cover showing the Room No as 28, mentioning the name of J.Gokulapriya bearing Registration No.1876930 and inside the cover Rs.200 was kept (2 nos. of Rs.100). The said teacher Dhanapal stated that the candidate J.Gokulapriya was known to one of the Hall Superintendents namely Surya Kala and the said Surya Kala has given the cover to him. 9. of Rs.100). The said teacher Dhanapal stated that the candidate J.Gokulapriya was known to one of the Hall Superintendents namely Surya Kala and the said Surya Kala has given the cover to him. 9. When the Hall Superintendent Surya Kala was examined, she has stated that she is known to the candidate J.Gokulapriya as she is residing near her house and she was not doing well and requested the said Surya Kala to help her to answer the Mathematics paper and for that, the candidate's father gave a sum of Rs.200/-. Further, it was found that the persons working in the School namely Antony, Periyanayagam and Lakshmi took xerox copies of answers and distributed to all the students for the previous four days also, who attended the examination in the centre. One Babu has given a statement to that effect. 10. Further, inspection was conducted and it was found that the Hall Superintendent at Room No.22 has received a call to his cell phone 9488044467 from a cell phone number 9442116289, which was from one Thanga Murugan and when intercepted, the said Thanga Murugan told the Hall Superintendent that his son, Senthamizh Selvan is writing examination in Hall No.21 and he may be helped to write the correct answers, who in turn stated the same had been informed to the School headmistress Sowmya and she had directed to pass on the bit through a teacher named Shanthi. On enquiry, teacher Shanthi stated that she is from Government Higher Secondary School Vaanaapuram, who is hall superintendent of Room No.21 and she was given bit to help the son of the said Thanga Murugan. 11. Immediately, the District Collector, on noticing the said serious irregularities in conducting examinations, ordered to change the Supervisors and Superintendents of the examination centre and also ordered to suspend seven persons namely Dhanapal, Babu, Senthil Kumar, Surya Kala, Manimekala, Mary Florence and Sowmya. 12. The detailed report really establishes the fact of irregularity in conducting the examination by helping the students for monetary benefits, in collusion with the Hall Superintendents and the Staff of the School, which was not properly supervised by the Chief Superintendent, who is the Headmistress of the School. 13. The said surprise inspection by the District Collector and his team is not in dispute. 13. The said surprise inspection by the District Collector and his team is not in dispute. When the examination centre was inspected and serious irregularities in conducting the public examination was found personally by the District Collector and his team, no further proof is required to cancel the examination centre from the petitioner School. No malafide is alleged against the District Collector or any of the team members. The petitioner School again seeks examination centre as a matter of right. When the authorities, who conduct the public examination, have lost confidence in the petitioner School in conducting the examination after having found that the examination was not conducted in a fair and proper manner, the second respondent is fully justified in passing the impugned order dated 03.05.2012. There is no irregularity or illegality in the order passed passed by the second respondent. 14. Unless stringent actions are taken to curb the mal practices in the examinations, that too in collusion with the Centre Superintendents, Hall Superintendents and Staff of the School, the object of conducting public examination will be defeated. The persons responsible to conduct examinations namely the Chief Superintendents of the centre, Hall Supervisors, persons assisting such persons are bound to behave with full responsibility with care and caution and are bound to ensure that no mal practice is allowed to take place while conducting examinations. It is well settled principle of law that an examination is a stepping stone on career advancement of a student. The paramount consideration in the conduct of examination is the ability to conduct examination by not allowing to copy. The Board which is conducting examination is bound to select such persons as Supervisors, who must have the ability and capacity to control other staff and candidates who are appearing for the examination. In this case, by the timely intervention of the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, namely Mr.Ansul Mishra, the improper conduct of the Class X examination was found and the said timely intervention is very much appreciated. 15. The Management of the petitioner School is not justified in arguing that the Government School teachers, served as Hall Supervisors cannot be controlled by the Headmistress. The said statement shows the inability of the School to conduct examinations in proper manner. Thus, the order passed by the second respondent is just and proper and no interference is required. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. The said statement shows the inability of the School to conduct examinations in proper manner. Thus, the order passed by the second respondent is just and proper and no interference is required. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.