JUDGMENT S. PANDA, J. : The petitioners-24 in numbers have challenged the action of the Controller of Examinations, Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Viswavidyalaya, Puri, opposite party No.1, in declaring their results of Upashastri Examination, 2012 as Malpractice. 2.The petitioners are the students of Dr. Harekrushna Mahatab Adarsha Sanskrit Mohavidyalaya, Cuttack, opposite party No.3. After completion of their courses, they appeared the Upashastri Examination, 2012 commenced from 2nd March, 2012 and continued upto 13th March, 2012 from their College which had been declared as examination centre. It is contended by the petitioners that they have done well in the examination. The examination was concluded peacefully and they were expecting good results. Thereafter, the result was published on 15.5.2012 and to their utter surprise, they found that the entire centre from which the petitioners appeared the aforesaid examination was declared as cancelled in a specific paper, i.e., “Vyakarana” which was held on 12.3.2012 as malpractice. It is averred that the examination was conducted smoothly. Total 126 students, i.e., the students of opposite party No.3-College as well as nearby college of Sundara Grama, appeared the aforesaid examination from the said centre. The squad members and observers visited the centre but at no point of time any incriminating material was ever seized from any of the students. Further, it was also contended that the decision of opposite party No.2, in declaring their results as malpractice is illegal, arbitrary, whimsical and is violating the principle of natural justice. The petitioners have suffered due to such declaration of result even though they are no fault. Opposite party No.2 though cancelled the result due to mass malpractice in the paper “Vyakarana” on 12.3.2012, however, tablation register reveals that the students of opposite party No.3-College so far as History paper is concerned was also declared malpractice. The examination of the History paper was held on 6.3.2012 and the said fact was not notified on 15.5.2012 wherein it was declared that due to mass malpractice in the paper “Vyakarana”, the said result was cancelled. In view of the above, the decision taken by opposite party No.2, vide Annexure-3, is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the petitioners have also prayed to declare their result of the aforesaid examination. In view of the above, the decision taken by opposite party No.2, vide Annexure-3, is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the petitioners have also prayed to declare their result of the aforesaid examination. 3.In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Governing Body, Jambeswar Mahavidyalaya, Balasore v. Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa and another reported in 2005 (II) OLR 518 . 4.A counter affidavit has been filed by opposite parties 1 and 2 taking a stand that the University fixed the commencement of the examination and the examination was conducted by the University in respect of the subjects on the scheduled date and time. For conducting free and fair examination, the University authorities took all possible steps by appointing Centre Superintendent and Flying Squads to supervise and surprise check of the examination centre. The Examination Committee was constituted to consider the report furnished by the Centre Superintendent as well as Flying Squads to take the decision regarding publication of the result. During examination on 10.3.2012 and 12.3.2012, the Flying Squads visited the examination Centre. The Flying Squad on 10.3.2012 asked the Centre Superintendent to deposit the answer scripts packets in the post office for dispatch as per the norms of the examination so that the answer scripts would be sent to different zones for evaluation. The clear of the institution, however, showed the postal receipt stating that the answer scripts have already been dispatched to the University. Again, on 12.3.2012 the Flying Squads made a surprise visit to the examination centre and submitted a report dated 12.3.2012. The Examination Committee considering the report of the Flying Squad and all the relevant materials on 7.5.2012 decided to cancel the particular papers. Accordingly, the petitioners examination centre so far as it relates to the subject “Vyakarana” held on 12.3.2012 was declared as cancelled on the ground of mass malpractice. 5.Learned counsel for the opposite parties has also produced the attested xerox copies of the supervision report submitted by the Flying Squad on the basis of which the examination committee of the University had taken the decision to cancel the examination held on 12.3.2012 in opposite party No.3-centre. 6.For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the said report is quoted below : “E. OBSERVANCE OF EXAMINATION : 1. 6.For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the said report is quoted below : “E. OBSERVANCE OF EXAMINATION : 1. Whether candidates were trying to help each other to use incriminating materials. xxxxxxxxx INSTANCE OF MISCONDUCT : xxxxxxxxx (iv) Causing disturbance to other candid in the hall. xxxxxxxxx (vi) Misbehaving with the invigilators/Supervisors outside the hall after or before the period of examination. Mr. Durllabha Chandra Nayak, Lect. in Vyakarana and Raj Kishore Parida, Clerk misbehaved me after the exam was over as I asked them to send answer scripts thorough Indian Post Immediately. Detail Report is attached separately. 9. Recommendation, if any, regarding general disciplinary measures to be taken against the Centre As the Superintendent, Gokul Charan Das and Head of the Institution Durllabha Chandra Nayak along with Raj Kishore Parida, Clerk were involved not in dispatching the packets of answer scripts daily report attached), Strong action may be taken against them. The Centre Superintendent may be black listed. The paper on the date 12.3.2012 be scratched. Durllabha Chandra Nayak and Raj Kishore Parida should be black listed from all other examinations of S.J.S.V. in future. Superintendent should be deputed to this Centre from other institutions. Sd/- Basanta Kumar Parida 12.3.2012 Flying Squad.” “Yes” “Yes” It also appears that the Flying Squads have submitted separate report regarding details of the conduct of the examination held in the other dates also. On the above facts and circumstances of the case it reveals that the examination was not conducted separately in the examination centre of opposite party No.3. 7. Law is well settled that if in an examination centre the examinee resort to mass malpractice and the situation in the centre was so chaotic that no examination worth the name was possible to be conducted in accordance with the norms of the examining authority, in such a situation the examining authority may be justified in cancelling such examination to maintain its standard of Education. (See 2005 (II) OLR 518 ). However, in the case of Governing Body, Jambeswar Mahavidyalaya, Balasore (supra), the allegation was against the Centre Superintendent as well as other staff, who were supplying the incriminating materials to the students at the time of examination. The report produced before the Court in that case revealed that it was only to some favoured/selected students who were being helped by the Centre Superintendent in the examination hall. The report produced before the Court in that case revealed that it was only to some favoured/selected students who were being helped by the Centre Superintendent in the examination hall. Therefore, those students alone could have been booked for malpractice or steps should have been taken by the Council to take action against the Centre Superintendent. By any imagination, the said report could not have been construed as a report of mass malpractice or mass copying by all examinees to justify cancellation of the examination of the Centre. 8.Since the facts of the present case are different than the decision cited by the petitioner in the case of Governing Body, Jambeswar Mahavidyalaya, Balasore (supra), the said decision is not applicable to the present case. 9.The apex Court in the case of the Bihar School Examination Board .v Subhas Chandra Sinha and others reported in AIR 1970 SC 1269 (V 57 C 265) has 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. 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 examination 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 have 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. 10.In the present case, from the records produced by the opposite parties it appears that there are sufficient materials available on record before the examination committee to take a decision for cancelling the examination due to mass malpractice. It is also not out of place to observe that the University should rise to the occasion to stop malpractice and mass malpractice at the instance of the colleges sometimes. It is also not out of place to observe that the University should rise to the occasion to stop malpractice and mass malpractice at the instance of the colleges sometimes. The examining authority scrutinized the reports in its proper perspective and satisfied that the examination had not been conducted in accordance with the rules and the norms prescribed. The examinees had resorted to mass copying with the assistance of the college authorities. As such, the examination is vitiated as held by the apex Court in the case of Bihar School Examination Board (supra). 11.In view of the above reasoning, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the decision of the opposite parties canceling the result as mass malpractice. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.