JUDGMENT SANJU PANDA, J. : Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2.In W.P.(C) No.7848 of 2012, the petitioner-institution challenges the decision/Notification dated 19.08.2010 (Annexure-3) of the Controller of Examinations, Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Visvavidyalaya, Shri Vihar, Puri-opposite party No.2 in canceling the result of the students of the petitioner-institution both in Upashastri and Shastri Examination, 2010 in respect of one paper in each streams, i.e. Paper-6th (Shastriya Optional-Darsan) of Upashastri (New Course) Examination, Paper-8th (Shastriya Optional Sahitya) in Pre-Degree and Paper-20th (M.I.L. (Oriya) Final Degree of Shastri Examination on the allegation of malpractice with a prayer to quash the notification under Annexure-3 with a direction to the opp.party No.2 to publish the result of the students of the aforesaid institution on those papers. In W.P.(C) No.10852 of 2012, the petitioner-institution has challenged decision/notification dated 15.5.2012 (Annexure-4) of the Controller of Examinations, Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Visvavidyalaya, Shri Vihar, Puri-opposite party No.2 in canceling the result of the students of the petitioner-institution in respect of 4th Paper i.e. Sastriya Optional Vyakarana of Upashastri Examination, 2012 on the allegation of mass malpractice with a prayer to quash the notification under Annexure-4 with a direction to the opp.party No.2 to publish the result of the students of the aforesaid institution. In W.P.(C) No.11380 of 2012, the petitioner-institution has challenged decision/notification dated 15.5.2012 (Annexure-4) of the Controller of Examinations, Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Visvavidyalaya, Shri Vihar, Puri-opposite party No.2 in canceling the result of the students of the petitioner-institution in respect of 7th Paper i.e. Modern Optional, History of Upashastri Examination, 2012 on the allegation of mass malpractice with a prayer to quash the notification under Annexure-4 with a direction to the opp.party No.2 to publish the result of the students of the aforesaid institution. In W.P.(C) No.11410 of 2012, the petitioner institution has challenged decision/notification dated 15.5.2012 (Annexure-4) of the Controller of Examinations, Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Visvavidyalaya, Shri Vihar, Puri-opposite party No.2 in canceling the result of the students of the petitioner-institution in respect of 3rd Paper i.e. English of Upashastri Examination, 2012 on the allegation of malpractice with a prayer to quash the notification under Annexure-4 with a direction to the opp.party No.2 to publish the result of the students of the aforesaid institution. 3.On the overall general allegation made in all the writ petitions, W.P.(C) No.7848 of 2012 is taken up as a leading case. The petitioner-institution is a recognized institution and affiliated with Shree Jagannath Sanskrit, Visvavidyalaya, Shri Vihar, Puri in respect of Upashastri and Shastri Courses. Accordingly, the petitioner-institution was tagged with Mahapurusa Hadidas College, Chhatia in the district of Jajpur along with 8 other Sanskrit Colleges for Examination, 2010 and the said College was declared as Examination Centre. As per the schedule, the examination was conducted peacefully to the best satisfaction of the authorities in presence of the local police. There was neither any mass copying nor the case of copying by vast majority of candidates. While the matter stood thus, on 19th August, 2010 the result of Upashastri Examination was declared provisionally with a stipulation that result published are purely provisional and subject to modification after post publication scrutiny if any mistake/discrepancy detected should however be brought to the notice of the Controller of Examinations within 30 days from the date of publication of result through the respective Principal by furnishing all details for necessary verification. Accordingly, since the result of the students of petitioner-institution in above papers were cancelled with report of mal-practice, the petitioners enquired about it and ascertained that the Observer has submitted a report alleging mal-practice. Thereafter, the petitioner-institution applied for copy of the said report of the Observer under R.T.I. Act. But the University did not supply the report. The petitioners also ascertained from the Centre Superintendent that out of 800 students, 9 students were reported to be involved in mass mal-practice. However, nothing has bene seized from the other students in any manner. The petitioner-institution also approached the Vice Chancellor of the University as well as Minister, Higher Education Department at different times and requested them for publication of the results of the students as the report of the Observer was concocted, motivated and unwarranted, in view of the report of the Centre Superintendent. Despite the request of the petitioner-institution, the opposite parties have not taken any step. In the meantime, the petitioner-institution has made also several representations. However, since the opposite parties have not taken any action, the petitioner-institution filed the present writ petition. It is further stated that the cancellation of result of the students of the petitioner-institution, of Upashastri and Shastri Examination, 2010 is in violation of natural justice. In the meantime, the petitioner-institution has made also several representations. However, since the opposite parties have not taken any action, the petitioner-institution filed the present writ petition. It is further stated that the cancellation of result of the students of the petitioner-institution, of Upashastri and Shastri Examination, 2010 is in violation of natural justice. Accordingly, the same need be interfered with. 4.A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties taking a stand that to conduct free and fair examination as per the instructions issued by the Syndicate, the Examination Committee was constituted and with the instructions of such Examination Committee, Flying Squad members have been selected to make surprise visit of the examination centres to report to the University with regard to conduct of examinations by the respective Centre Superintendents. Accordingly, the Flying Squad members made a surprise visit to verify the conduct of Upashastri and Shastri Examination, 2010 on 6.5.2010, 10.5.2010 and 17.5.2010. However, the Flying Squad members furnished their report stating inter alia that the examination has not been conducted in a free and fair manner in the said centre rather, it is stated that large number of persons were found present inside the examination premises to influence the examination process and they were indulged in supplying unfair means to the examinees. The situation was chaotic and the Books and Notes were made available to the examinees in the examination hall. Absence of candidates was not maintained in pen and paper and it was observed that the candidates were trying to help each other for using incriminating materials and were attempting to take outside assistance. Incriminating documents were found scattered in the examination hall. As, on surprise visit on 6.5.2010 at 8.30 A.M. the Flying Squad found unfair means were being adopted at the examination centre by mass students it submitted such report in the proforma prescribed for the said purpose. The Centre Superintendent did not co-operate nor give the proforma for preparation of report. There was gross violation in the conduct of Examination Rules as examinees in groups were coming despite the fact that examination had started sharp at 7 A.M. and there was sitting arrangement according to sear chart, students were sitting according to their suitability. The students were also sitting on the corridors/verandahs and sufficient number of Invigilators was not present as per the norms of University Examination. The students were also sitting on the corridors/verandahs and sufficient number of Invigilators was not present as per the norms of University Examination. Incriminating materials were found in each and every examination hall and the Flying Squad collected few samples which were countersigned by the Invigilators for the information of the Controller of Examinations. As per the provision, answer scripts of each day examination were required to be sent by registered parcel to the Controller of Examinations. But the Centre Superintendent had not sent a single packed of answer scripts till 10.5.2010, though examinations have already started from 30.4.2010. The Centre Superintendent explained that due to lack of funds to dispatch the packets, the same could not be dispatched. The report of the Flying Squad placed before the Examination Committee held on 13th August, 2010 and the Examination Committee was pleased to satisfy that as there was mass mal-practice in the aforesaid examinations recommend that the institution may not be fixed as a examination centre in future and the examinations held on 6.5.2010 10.5.2010 and 17.5.2010 may be cancelled. The said decision of the examination Committee was placed before the Syndicate and the Syndicate by its resolution dated 16.8.2010 approved the decision of the Examination Committee. Accordingly, the result of the aforesaid Centre was cancelled. Therefore, opposite parties have averred that there was no such illegality committed in cancelling the same as they have followed the procedure properly. 5.Considering the rival submissions of the parties and after going through the report of the Flying Squad, it appears that the opposite parties before canceling the result have followed prescribed procedure. As per the direction, the report of the Flying Squad was produced before this Court by the learned counsel for the opposite parties. This Court is of the view that the opposite parties have followed the procedure. Since the examination Committee has taken a decision after considering the report of the Flying Squad and the decision of the Examination Committee was approved by the Syndicate, which is a autonomous body of the University and is responsible for maintaining higher standard of education while conducting examination in a fair manner, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The University has not charged a single candidate or 2/3 candidates with unfair means adopted in the examination. The University has not charged a single candidate or 2/3 candidates with unfair means adopted in the examination. Therefore, the question of giving opportunity to such candidates to defend themselves does not arise. The examination was vitiated by adoption of unfair means on a mass scale copying by the examinees at the Centre for which the University has taken the decision and under such circumstances, the University cannot hold a detailed quasi judicial inquiry with a right to its alumni by affording personal hearing to the candidates/examinees and to plead and lead evidence etc. before the result was cancelled. In the case of The Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha and others reported in AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1269 (V 57 C 265), the apex Court held that in case in a centre if the hole body of students received assistance and manage to secure success in the neighbourhood of 100% when others at other centres were successful only at an average of 50%, it is obvious that the University or the Board must do something in the matter. It cannot hold a detailed quasi judicial inquiry with a right to its alumni to plead and lead evidence etc before the results were withheld or the examinations cancelled. If there is sufficient material on which it can be demonstrated that the University/Board was right in its conclusion that the examinations ought to be cancelled. The academic standards require that the University’s decision must be respected as the same was taken appreciating the problem to maintain academic standard. It would not do for the Court to say that it should the examined all the candidates or even their representatives with a view to ascertaining whether they had received assistance or not, which will encourage indiscipline if not also perjury. 6.In view of the aforesaid decision of the apex Court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the decision of the opposite parties to cancel the examinations. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. Petitions dismissed.