JUDGMENT C.R. DASH, J. The petitioners are some of the students of Draupadi Junior College At/P.O., Gumuda, District - Rayagada. They were amongst the 164 students, who had appeared in Annual +2 Examinations of 2012 conducted by the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa ("C.H.S.E." for short). Examination for the paper of Political Science in +2 Arts was held on 14.03.2012. At about 10.20 A.M. the Flying Squad of C.H.S.E. arrived at the Examination Centre in Draupadi Junior College. Four rooms were accommodating all the 164 students of the college. The Flying Squad, which remained at the examination centre till 10.50 A.M., detected malpractice in respect of 11 students, as detailed in their report and found the atmosphere in the examination centre disturbing. They recommended for scratching of the sitting in respect of Political Science paper in +2 Arts held on 14.03.2012. On the basis of the report of the Flying Squad and the recommendation, the Notification vide Annexure-1 was issued awarding 00' marks, i.e. cancellation of results of Political Science paper in +2 Arts of that centre. The petitioners have challenged the Notification vide Annexure-1 and have further sought for publication of the results in Political Science paper by proper evaluation of the answer scripts as per their performance and to issue them with revised mark-sheets for the purpose of higher studies. 2. The Principal of the College (opp. party No.2) has filed counter affidavit controverting all the allegations and has specifically averred that proper gate-checking was done before commencement of the examination on the aforesaid date and only 11 (eleven) students were found to be resorting to malpractice by the Flying Squad at the time of examination. 3. The C.H.S.E. has filed counter affidavit and it has specifically been averred in the counter affidavit that the Flying Squad has given written report alongwith incriminating materials collected from the examination hall and has recommended for cancellation of the sitting in Political Science paper held on 14.03.2012, giving reasons for the recommendations in the report. It has been reported by the squad members that the general condition around the examination centre was distributing and outsiders were present inside the examination hall. It is further reported by the Flying Squad that the Invigilators were abettors to the malpractice and majority of the candidates were involved in such malpractice. The Centre Superintendent was also indifferent and was an abettor to the malpractice. It is further reported by the Flying Squad that the Invigilators were abettors to the malpractice and majority of the candidates were involved in such malpractice. The Centre Superintendent was also indifferent and was an abettor to the malpractice. There was no gate-checking, as a result of which plenty of incriminating materials were found inside the examination halls. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the report of the Flying Squad in omnibus in nature and only 30 (thirty) sheets of incriminating materials were seized by them from one of the windows of an examination hall, which were annexed to the report. Further it is submitted that only 11 students were found to be resorting to malpractice, and for those 11 students all the 164 students, who are mostly tribals, cannot be made to suffer. 5. Learned counsel for the C.H.S.E. on the other hand submits that this Court should not substitute its opinion in place of the opinion of the Examination Committee which has taken into consideration diligently the report of the Flying Squad and, in view of such, the prayer of the petitioners must be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Indira Gandhi Mahila Mahavidyalaya and another v. The Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa and two others, 2006 (II) OLR 774 [also 103 (2007) CL T 395], wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held thus: "Law is well settled that the examining authorities while taking drastic step of cancelling 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 malpractice which was not practicable for the Squad to detect. It is relevant to note here that in the prescribed format the Flying Squad in column 16 has specifically stated that malpractice in respect of 12 cases, as referred to above, was detected and reported. In Col. 17 the Squad reported that there was no misbehaviour of candidates. In Col. 19 to the question whether the Centre Superintendent was co-operative, the Squad has answered 'yes' whereas in the special report the answer is otherwise. In Col. 17 the Squad reported that there was no misbehaviour of candidates. In Col. 19 to the question whether the Centre Superintendent was co-operative, the Squad has answered 'yes' whereas in the special report the answer is otherwise. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the 'Council on the basis of such a report of the Flying Squad, as discussed above, could not have taken the decision for cancelling the examination of all the 76 candidates appearing from the Centre. Such decision by the Council was taken without application of mind and on a casual approach to the matter. Had the Council scrutinized the report of the Flying Squad in its proper perspective, it could not have taken such a drastic step in cancelling the examination of all the 76 examinees. However, in view of the specific report as against 12 candidates as mentioned in the report of Squad and referred to in this order, their cases have to be dealt with in accordance with law and appropriate decision need be taken. The decision of the Council for cancelling the entire examination being not sustainable is quashed except in respect of the 12 candidates booked for malpractice." Learned counsel appearing for the C.H.S.E. on the other hand has relied on another decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Esther Pamali Jena v. Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa and others, 81 (1996) CLT 133, wherein the Hon'ble Court has 'held thus: "An examination is held to assess the depth of knowledge of a candidate in a particular subject for which he or she appears. The essence of the examination is that the worth of every person is appraised without any assistance from an outside source. Resort to malpractice takes away the scope of making an objective assessment of the merit of the candidates." The Division Bench of this Court, in the aforesaid case, considered the report of the Flying Squad in respect of Annual Higher Secondary Examination, 1995 held in the centre of City Women's College, Thoria Sahi, Cuttack in respect of two papers, i.e. English-1 and English-2 and concurred with the view of the Examination Committee so far as cancellation of the examination is concerned, as this Court was convicted that the candidates had resorted to mass malpractice. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the C.H.S.E. relied on another decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Chairman, J. & K. State Board of Education vs. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and others, AIR 2000 SC 1039 , wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in matters concerning campus discipline of educational institutions and conduct of examinations, the duty is primarily Vested in the authorities in-charge of the institution, and in such matters Court should not try to substitute its own views in place of the concerned authorities nor thrust its views on them. 8. In the present case, the Flying Squad Report is produced by learned counsel for the C.H.S.E., a copy of which should be kept on record. From the said report it is found that the Flying Squad remained in the examination centre for about 30 minutes. They have reported that the general condition around the examination hall was disturbing; the Centre Superintendent was not co-operative; the Invigilators were abetting malpractice; majority of the candidates were involved in malpractice and the Centre Superintendent was indifferent to the malpractice. At the same time, the report is indicative of the fact that police protection was sought for, gate-checking was done before commencement of the exam and 30 pages of incriminating materials relating to Political Science subject were found from the windows of the exam hall when the members of the Flying Squad entered into the exam centre, which were thrown by the examinees. It is further found from the report that only 11 candidates were found to be resorting to malpractice. 9. A reading of the Flying Squad Report in its entirety shows that only 30 pages of incriminating materials of Political Science subject were detected and only 11 students were found to be resorting to malpractice. There were 164 students in the entire centre, but, except the aforesaid 30 pages of incriminating materials no other materials were found by the Flying Squad. 30 pages of incriminating materials were found from one of the windows of one of the examination halls out of the four halls. There were 164 students in the entire centre, but, except the aforesaid 30 pages of incriminating materials no other materials were found by the Flying Squad. 30 pages of incriminating materials were found from one of the windows of one of the examination halls out of the four halls. Only for those 30 pages of incriminating materials, which might have thrown by one of the students or some of the students of that hall, 164 students appearing in the examination from the entire centre could not have been held liable, in as much as the opinion of the Flying Squad so far as other aspects are concerned, are more subjective than objective. General discipline in an examination centre, which may be matter of control by the authority concerned, is quite different from mass malpractice. In the present case, the examination paper in question has been cancelled on the basis of mass malpractice. 164 students have come to suffer by such a decision; but to justify mass malpractice only 30 pages of incriminating materials have been seized, which can be taken as materials towards objective satisfaction to deduce a conclusion. Regard being had to all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am constrained to hold that the Examination Committee has not properly applied its mind either to the report of the Flying Squad or to the facts and circumstances of the case while taking a drastic decision of cancelling the Political Science paper so far as the examination centre, i.e. Draupadi Junior College, Rayagada is concerned. In the premises as aforesaid, the Notification vide Annexute-1 relating to cancellation of Political Science paper of +2 Arts Annual H.S. Examination 2012 as held in the centre of Draupadi Junior College, Rayagada is quashed except those 11 candidates as mentioned in the report of the Flying Squad, who were found to be resorting to malpractice. The results of all other students except those 11 students, as mentioned in the report of the Flying Squad be published within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. So far as those 11 students, whose names or Roll Number find mention in the report of the Flying Squad, action in accordance with law may be initiated against them. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Petition disposed of.