Judgment: Alok Aradhe, J. 1. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have, inter alia, assailed the validity of the orders dated 24-4-2014, 3-5-2014, 6-5-2014, 7-5-2014, 8-5-2014 and 19-5-2014 by which, the Professional Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") has cancelled the results of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had resorted to unfair means during the Pre Medical Tests held between years 2008 to 2012. The petitioners also seek consequential direction to the respondents to permit them to prosecute the studies in MBBS Course. In order to appreciate the petitioners' challenge to the impugned orders, the relevant facts need mention, which are stated infra. The Board was initially constituted by Notification dated 30-7-1983 and thereafter, re-constituted by Notification dated 22-1-2004 in exercise of executive powers by the State Government for discharging its obligation of conducting free and fair pre-entrance examination for admission to professional courses. The Board has been conducting Pre Medical Tests every year for admission to MBBS Course in respect of various Colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Board held the Pre Medical Tests between the period from 2008 to 2013. The Pre Medical Test, 2013 was scheduled to be held on 7-7-2013. A complaint regarding commission of gross irregularities and use of unfair means by the candidates in the examination was received by the Director General of Police on 6-7-2013. Acting on the said complaint and reports published in local newspapers about the conspiracy hatched for resorting to unfair means by a large number of candidates with the assistance of the candidates coming from other States, the Indore Crime Branch arrested about 20 suspects. 2. On 7-7-2013, First Information Report was lodged bearing Crime No. 539/2013 at Police Station, Rajendra Nagar, Indore mentioning about involvement of large number of candidates having indulged in unfair means during Pre Medical Test, 2013. After registration of First Information Report, the Crime Branch made enquiries and sought certain information from the officials of the Board, which was furnished to the Crime Branch on 12-7-2013. The officials of the Board, namely, Nitin Mohindra, Principal System Analyst and Ajay Kumar Sen, Senior System Analyst were interrogated and were arrested by the Police on 16-7-2013 and were suspended by the Board on 17-7-2013. During the investigation, involvement of one C.K. Mishra, Assistant Programmer of the Board was also found. The officials of the Board, namely, Nitin Mohindra, Principal System Analyst and Ajay Kumar Sen, Senior System Analyst were interrogated and were arrested by the Police on 16-7-2013 and were suspended by the Board on 17-7-2013. During the investigation, involvement of one C.K. Mishra, Assistant Programmer of the Board was also found. The Board received a list of 317 candidates from Superintendent of Police, Indore, who were named as beneficiaries of the conspiracy. The factum of involvement of one Jagdish Sagar in the conspiracy also came to the light. The Director of the Board submitted proposal to the Chairman on 30-8-2013 to permit constitution of Computer Experts Committee to examine the records and submit its opinion and recommendations. The Chairman accorded approval to the said proposal on 5-9-2013. 3. The Director of the Board by communication dated 31-8-2013 required Nitin Mohindra and Ajay Kumar Sen to furnish the logic of allotment of roll numbers for facilitating the scrutiny by the Computer Experts Committee. The said officials by communication dated 3-9-2013 expressed their inability to disclose the logic in allocation of the roll numbers to the candidates. In the absence of information divulged by the aforesaid officials, the Computer Experts Committee had to evolve its own mechanism to find out the methodology adopted in the allocation of roll numbers to the concerned candidates by method other than the stipulated or specified randomisation process. The Computer Experts Committee comprising of 6 experts was constituted, which convened its first meeting on 7-9-2013. The Committee submitted its report on 7-9-2013 in which, in the initial scrutiny, it found mismatch of roll numbers of 30195 out of 40086 candidates including the allocation of roll numbers of 49 candidates whose application forms were rejected by the Board in respect of Pre Medical Test, 2013. The Computer Experts Committee thereafter held its meetings on 30-9-2013 and 4-10-2013. The meeting of the Committee of the Joint Controllers was convened on 8-10-2013. From perusal of the report, the yardstick adopted by the Committee in identifying 345 candidates, who were involved in conspiracy of change of roll numbers after their generation, is evident. The relevant extract of the report reads as under:-- 4. The reports and opinions of the Committee were placed before the Chairman of the Board with the recommendation to initiate action against 345 identified candidates. The relevant extract of the report reads as under:-- 4. The reports and opinions of the Committee were placed before the Chairman of the Board with the recommendation to initiate action against 345 identified candidates. The Chairman agreed with the proposal submitted by the Director and issued directions to proceed in the matter, which is evident from the noting dated 8-10-2013 and the same is reproduced below for the facility of reference:-- 5. In pursuance of direction issued by Chairman, the Director issued the impugned order dated 9-10-2013 by which the results of examination of 345 candidates, who had appeared in the Pre Medical Test, 2013 were cancelled on the ground that they had indulged in unfair means. The relevant extract of the order reads as under:-- 6. Thereafter, on 22-11-2013, the Board received a list from Special Task Force in respect of another 92 candidates who had allegedly indulged in unfair means as a result of which First Information Report was lodged against them. On receipt of said information, a meeting of Joint Controllers was convened on 30-11-2013, in which, on due analysis of the material and after applying the same logic, as was applied for identifying 345 candidates, the committee opined that action must be taken against 70 additional candidates. The relevant extract of the evaluation report dated 30-11-2013 reads as under:-- 7. After receipt of the report, the Director placed the matter before the Chairman with the recommendation to take action against 70 additional candidates, who were identified by the Committee of the Joint Controllers. The Chairman approved the proposal. In pursuance of approval accorded by the Chairman, the Director issued an order dated 6-12-2013. The relevant extract of which reads as under:-- 8. The Board by communication dated 24-10-2013 informed the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Special Task Force that in Pre Medical Test, 2012 roll numbers of 701 candidates were found to be altered. During the course of investigation of Crime No. 12/2013, one Jagdish Sagar and Sanjeev Shilpkar informed the Investigating Officer of the Special Task Force that they in collusion with Nitin Mohindra and other officials of the Board had indulged in change of roll numbers to facilitate the candidates for indulging in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2012 as well. Accordingly, the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Special Task Force by communication dated 31-12-2013 addressed to the Controller of the Board requested to conduct an enquiry with regard to Pre Medical Tests held in the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 as well, and to submit a report so that suitable action in the matter can be taken. 9. Thereafter, by communication dated 28-1-2014, the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Special Task Force informed the Controller of the Board that while investigation of Crime No. 12/2013 it has been found that OMR sheets of certain candidates have been filled up by the Officials of the Board and, therefore, necessary action be taken against them. 10. In the meanwhile, the Board on 6-11-2013 constituted Technical Committee of following persons to examine the irregularities conducted in the Pre Medical Test, 2012:-- 11. It is pertinent to mention here that Pre Medical Test, 2012 was held on 10-6-2012, in which 38,671 candidates had appeared. The Committee, as stated supra, was constituted vide order dated 6-11-2013, which held its meeting on 15-11-2013 and found that roll numbers of 701 candidates were altered after its generation. Out of 701 candidates, the Committee identified 345 suspected candidates and after scrutiny recommended for cancellation of result of 319 candidates vide recommendations dated 15-4-2014 and 5-5-2014. The Committee excluded cases of 26 candidates, who on the basis of low marks could not qualify for admission to MBBS Course. The Committee also took into account the seating plan in the examination centres and found that roll numbers were tampered with the object to form pairs. In most of the pairs, it was noticed that one of the candidates is out of State of Madhya Pradesh and there is similarity in the matching right answers and matching wrong answers to a large extent, which is possible only on account of copying. The recommendations of the Committee were approved by the Chairman on 15-4-2014 and 6-5-2014. Consequently, the orders of cancellation of results of candidates, who had indulged in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2012 were issued on 15-4-2014 and 6-5-2014 by which results of 272 and 47 candidates respectively were cancelled. 12. The Board vide orders dated 26-4-2014 and 15-5-2014 directed constitution of the Committees to examine the irregularities committed in the Pre Medical Tests of the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 and 2008 respectively. 12. The Board vide orders dated 26-4-2014 and 15-5-2014 directed constitution of the Committees to examine the irregularities committed in the Pre Medical Tests of the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 and 2008 respectively. The Pre Medical Test, 2011 was held on 24-7-2011, in which 26,116 candidates had appeared. It is pertinent to mention here that Pre Medical Test, 2011 was held off-line. The Committee found that roll numbers of 110 candidates were altered. The Computer Experts Committee in its meeting held on 3-5-2014 evolved a formula and fixed bench mark score to ascertain use of unfair means in the examination at 127.40, i.e., double the average of correct answers given by the candidates, who were not involved in any irregularity, i.e., 63.55 marks. On the basis of aforesaid criteria and the records available with the Board, the Committee identified that roll numbers of 55 pairs were altered/tampered, who were sitting next to each other in the examination hall. It was further found by the Committee that there is similarity in the matching right answers and matching wrong answers of aforesaid 55 pairs of candidates and certain candidates from State of Madhya Pradesh as well as the candidates from outside the State had chosen the particular examination centre and were sitting next to each other, whose roll numbers were tampered. The Committee excluded the cases of 10 candidates on the ground that they have secured low marks, therefore, could not seek admission to MBBS Course and cases of two candidates on the ground that on further verification, no proof with regard to tampering of their roll numbers was found. Accordingly, the Committee recommended for cancellation of the results of 98 candidates. The recommendation of the Committee was approved by the Chairman on 3-5-2014 as a consequence of which the order of cancellation of results of 98 candidates, who had indulged in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2011 was issued by the Director of the Board. 13. The Pre Medical Test, 2010 was held off-line on 20-6-2010 in which 26,711 candidates had appeared. The Committee identified 132 suspected candidates on the ground that their roll numbers were tampered. 13. The Pre Medical Test, 2010 was held off-line on 20-6-2010 in which 26,711 candidates had appeared. The Committee identified 132 suspected candidates on the ground that their roll numbers were tampered. The Committee in its meeting held on 5-5-2014 evolved, a formula and fixed bench mark score to ascertain use of unfair means in the examination at 142.66, i.e., double the number of average of correct answers given by the candidates, who were not involved in any irregularity, i.e., 71.33 marks. On the basis of aforesaid criteria as well as the record available with the Board, the Committee identified that roll numbers of 68 pairs were altered/tampered, who were sitting next to each other in the examination hall. It was further found by the Committee that there is similarity in the matching right answers and matching wrong answers of aforesaid 68 pairs of candidates. The Committee excluded 6 candidates on the ground that they had obtained low marks and did not qualify for admission to MBBS Course and on further scrutiny, it was found that there was no sufficient evidence with regard to tampering of roll numbers by 36 candidates. Accordingly, the Committee recommended for cancellation of the results of 90 candidates. The recommendation of the Committee was approved by the Chairman on 6-5-2014 as a consequence of which the order of cancellation of results of 90 candidates, who had indulged in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2010 was issued by the Director of the Board. 14. The Pre Medical Test, 2009 was held off-line as well as on-line on 5-7-2009 in which 29,162 candidates had appeared. The Committee identified 185 suspected candidates whose numbers were found to be tampered. The Experts Committee held its meeting on 7-5-2014, evolved a formula and fixed bench mark score to ascertain use of unfair means in the examination at 138.62, i.e., double the number of average of correct answers given by the candidates, who were not involved in any irregularity, i.e., 69.32 marks. On the basis of aforesaid criteria as well as the record available with the Board, the Committee identified that roll numbers of 95 pairs were altered/tampered, who were sitting next to each other in the examination hall. It was further found by the Committee that there is similarity in the matching right answers and matching wrong answers of aforesaid 95 pairs of candidates. It was further found by the Committee that there is similarity in the matching right answers and matching wrong answers of aforesaid 95 pairs of candidates. The Committee excluded 16 candidates on the ground that marks obtained by them were low and they were not entitled to seek admission in MBBS Course and on further scrutiny it also found that no sufficient material with regard to tampering of their roll numbers with regard to 84 candidates was found. Accordingly, the Committee recommended for cancellation of the results of 85 candidates. The recommendation of the Committee was approved by the Chairman on 8-5-2014 as a consequence of which the order of cancellation of results of 85 candidates who indulged in unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2009 was issued by the Director of the Board. 15. The Pre Medical Test, 2008, which was held off-line as well as online on 7-6-2008 in which 38,378 candidates had appeared. The Committee identified 110 suspected candidates. The Committee held its meeting on 16-5-2014, evolved formula and fixed bench mark score to ascertain use of unfair means in the examination at 138.74, i.e., double the number of average of correct answers given by the candidates, who were not involved in any irregularity, i.e., 69.37 marks. On the basis of aforesaid criteria as well as the record available with the Board, the Committee identified that roll numbers of 59 pairs were altered/tampered, who were sitting next to each other in the examination hall. It was further found by the Committee that there is similarity in the matching right answers and matching wrong answers of 21 pairs of candidates, who were sitting next to each other whose roll numbers were tampered. The Committee excluded 16 candidates on the ground that they secured low marks and could not secure admission to MBBS Course on further scrutiny it was found that no sufficient material was available with regard to tampering of roll numbers of 52 candidates. Accordingly, the Committee recommended for cancellation of the results of 42 candidates. The recommendation of the Committee was approved by the Chairman on 16-5-2014 as a consequence of which on 19-5-2014 an order of cancellation of results of 42 candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means in the examination in Pre Medical Test, 2008 was issued by the Director of the Board. The recommendation of the Committee was approved by the Chairman on 16-5-2014 as a consequence of which on 19-5-2014 an order of cancellation of results of 42 candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means in the examination in Pre Medical Test, 2008 was issued by the Director of the Board. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court. 16. Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 7576/2014, 7602/2014, 7611/2014, 7694/2014, 8412/2014, 9598/2014, 10361/2014, 10362/2014, 10365/2014 and W.P. No. 13936/2014 submitted that from perusal of order dated 3-5-2014, no basis for ordering an enquiry in respect of the Pre Medical Tests held between the years 2009 to 2011 is discernible. The enquiry was directed to be conducted merely on the basis of ipse dixit of the Chairman. Neither any report of the Centre Superintendent nor of the Invigilator of examination centre was obtained and no Centre Superintendent/Invigilator was examined to ascertain whether any material exists for ordering an enquiry into the alleged case of mass copying. Only on the basis of identification of certain groups, an enquiry was ordered in respect of the Pre Medical Tests held between the years 2009 to 2011. There was no material to order an enquiry in respect of the Pre Medical Tests of the years 2009 to 2011, before constitution of the Committees. It was also pointed out that the exclusion of candidates from enquiry on the ground that the marks obtained by them were low, is incorrect and no action has been taken against the candidates, who were allotted roll numbers naturally. It was also urged that it was not possible for the candidates to manipulate the roll numbers. While inviting our attention to Annexure P-9 in W.P. No. 7576/2014, it was pointed out that different pattern of marks obtained by the candidates is emerging, therefore, the same formula could not have been applied by the Board for identification of the candidates, who were allegedly involved in mass copying. It was also argued that there is no material on record to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioners were either involved in altering the roll numbers or had indulged in use of unfair means. It was also argued that there is no material on record to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioners were either involved in altering the roll numbers or had indulged in use of unfair means. It was also pointed out that report of the Committee is an opinion evidence and under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the same is required to be proved by the Board and, therefore, the District Judge should be directed to submit a report after due enquiry. It was also urged that the candidates participated in the competitive examination with all seriousness and none of them had raised any objection with regard to alleged mass copying, which took place in the examination centers, and no explanation has been furnished by the Board as to why there is difference of marks between alleged scorer and the marks obtained by the petitioners. It was also argued that no presumption can be raised merely on account of similarity in seating pattern and on account of obtaining similar marks with the candidates, who were allegedly involved in copying. It was further submitted that opinion of experts is not beyond the pole of judicial review. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on decisions of the Supreme Court in Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 744 and Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India and others Vs. Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and others, (2007) 12 SCC 210 . It was also pointed out by learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7694/2014 belongs to a poor family and has completed his studies and is undertaking internship. It was further pointed out that the petitioner was sitting during the examination in front of alleged scorer. 17. Rejoinder reply has been given by learned Senior Counsel by way of written submissions. In the written submissions, it is stated that Anubhav Sharma and Shivani Sharma were allotted Roll Nos. 523828 and 523829 respectively, who are related to each other as brother and sister. They were sitting in the examination hall next to each other and scored identical marks namely 172. However, no action has been taken against them by the Board because there was no change in their roll numbers. Thus, suspected candidates have been given clean-chit. 523828 and 523829 respectively, who are related to each other as brother and sister. They were sitting in the examination hall next to each other and scored identical marks namely 172. However, no action has been taken against them by the Board because there was no change in their roll numbers. Thus, suspected candidates have been given clean-chit. It has further been mentioned in the written submissions that the Board has failed to disclose the right answers in the mismatch answers, which goes to show that consideration was made with punctilious observation and no serious scrutiny was made. It is further submitted that though several candidates did not indulge in use of unfair means, yet their results were cancelled. The Board has taken action for cancellation of results of the candidates in selective manner. It is also mentioned that rule of law requires the Board to be more cautious and fair with the candidates and the burden to prove its action lies heavily on the Board. It is also mentioned that in cases where candidates have passed all examinations of MBBS Course in first attempt, the action of the Board in cancellation of their results cannot be said to be justified and the fate of such candidates should be made subject to ultimate decision by the Criminal Court. Lastly and in the alternative, it has been mentioned that the petitioners be granted the liberty to resort to the remedy of civil suit. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Counsel has referred to decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Veer Pal Singh Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Defence, (2013) 8 SCC 83 , Kunhayammed and others Vs. State of Kerala and another, AIR 2000 SC 2587 , Ashish Batham Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2002) 7 SCC 317 , East Coast Railway and another Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao and others, (2010) 7 SCC 678 , Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2008) 16 SCC 276 and Natwar Singh Vs. Director of Enforcement and another, (2010) 13 SCC 255 . 18. Mr. R.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No. 7772/2014 and W.P. No. 8135/2014 has submitted that the petitioners had appeared in the Pre Medical Test, 2008. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2008) 16 SCC 276 and Natwar Singh Vs. Director of Enforcement and another, (2010) 13 SCC 255 . 18. Mr. R.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No. 7772/2014 and W.P. No. 8135/2014 has submitted that the petitioners had appeared in the Pre Medical Test, 2008. It is further submitted that taking into account the magnitude of the scam, another High Level Committee of experts ought to have been constituted by the Board to consider the report submitted by the Computer Experts Committee. It is also pointed out that the entire action against the petitioners has been taken in hot haste and the same suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and powers of judicial review are available in the context of the order. Lastly, it is urged that the Court should constitute another Committee to satisfy itself as to whether the conclusions arrived at by the Committee of the experts appointed by the Board are correct. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel has referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Natwar Singh (supra), Mahadev Appa Rao (supra) and Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited (supra). 19. Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 9768/2014 and 9766/2014 has submitted that the petitioners had appeared in Pre Medical Test, 2012 from the Examination Centre at Shahdol. It is further submitted that out of 701 cases of mismatch, the cases of 510 candidates were examined, out of which, results of 272 candidates were cancelled and thereafter the results of 47 other candidates were cancelled on the recommendations of Special Task Force. It is also argued that the Enquiry Committee has not conducted the wholesome enquiry and in respect of Pre Medical Test, 2012, no formula was evolved by the Committee of Experts to ascertain whether the particular case is a case of mass copying. It is also argued that in Pre Medical Test, 2012 candidates did not indulge in mass copying and the grounds, which were available in respect of Pre Medical Test, 2013 for holding the same to be a case of mass copying are not in existence in the case of Pre Medical Test, 2012. It is also argued that in Pre Medical Test, 2012 candidates did not indulge in mass copying and the grounds, which were available in respect of Pre Medical Test, 2013 for holding the same to be a case of mass copying are not in existence in the case of Pre Medical Test, 2012. It is also pointed out that there is no material on record to hold that candidates have resorted to organised use of unfair means in the examination. 20. Mr. Amit Khatri, learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No. 7537/2014, W.P. No. 7540/2014, W.P. No. 7773/2014, W.P. No. 8431/2014, W.P. No. 8432/2014, W.P. No. 7538/2014, W.P. No. 7539/2014 and W.P. No. 7541/2014, Mr. Kuldeep Bhargava, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9342/2014, Mr. Atul Nema, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9981/2014, Mr. C.S. Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8462/2014 and Mr. Pushpendra Yadav, learned Counsel for petitioners in the Writ Petition Nos. 9963/2014, 9150/2014 and 9880/2014, Mr. Anup Kumar Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 10623/2014 and Mr. Himanshu Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 14059/2014 and 14062/2014 respectively have adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Rajendra Tiwari and Mr. R.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel. 21. Mr. Nikhil Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 14059/2014 and 14062/2014 while adopting the submissions made on behalf of learned Senior Counsel for petitioners in other writ petitions has submitted that petitioners' case does not fall within the purview of "unfair means" as defined in Clause 3.8 of Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Under Graduate Entrance Examination Rules, 2010. It is further submitted that formula evolved by Board has been applied in an erroneous manner, and since only two candidates were found copying in one room the same cannot be treated to be a case of mass copying. In rejoinder reply, it is submitted that jumbling report in Pre Medical Test, 2011 has been made the basis for taking action in respect of all the examinations. 22. Mr. R.B. Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9105/2014 submitted that the Board has cancelled the result of 98 candidates, who had appeared from thirteen different centers in the State, therefore, the instant case cannot be said to be a case of mass copying. 22. Mr. R.B. Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9105/2014 submitted that the Board has cancelled the result of 98 candidates, who had appeared from thirteen different centers in the State, therefore, the instant case cannot be said to be a case of mass copying. It is further submitted that prior to issuance of impugned order, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. While inviting our attention to roll number-wise list of candidates at page 174 of the return as well as Para. 5 of the rejoinder, it has been contended that in respect of roll numbers mentioned in Para. 5 of the rejoinder, no irregularity was found, therefore, the stand taken by respondents that the petitioner tampered with the roll number, is incorrect. It is also pointed out that documents mentioned in I.A. No. 95667 of 2014 were not supplied to the petitioner and some time limit should be prescribed for taking action for cancellation of admission. It is further submitted that there is no material on record to show that the candidates were aware about the jumbling report, therefore, it is not possible to infer that the candidates had indulged in mass copying. It is also argued that an independent expert ought to have been appointed. 23. Mr. N.S. Ruprah, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8028/2014 submitted that impugned order has been passed on the basis of surmises and conjectures. It is argued that it is impossible for a candidate to indulge in copying as sequence of questions in all four sets was different and OMR sheet of the petitioner has not been produced. It is also argued that impugned order has been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel has referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in cases of TVS Finance and Services Limited Vs. H. Shivakumar, (2010) 15 SCC 295, Oryx Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India and others, (2010) 13 SCC 427 and Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited (supra). 24. Mr. Deep Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9589/2014 has submitted that petitioner has secured 159 marks whereas alleged scorer has secured 142 marks. H. Shivakumar, (2010) 15 SCC 295, Oryx Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India and others, (2010) 13 SCC 427 and Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited (supra). 24. Mr. Deep Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9589/2014 has submitted that petitioner has secured 159 marks whereas alleged scorer has secured 142 marks. It is pointed out that academic record of the petitioner is good and he has secured more than 85% marks in High School and Higher Secondary School examinations and the petitioner, in fact, was sitting in the examination in front of the alleged scorer. While referring to orders dated 24-4-2014 and 7-5-2014, it is urged that though the attend emerging with regard to cancellation of admissions in both the orders is different, yet the same logic has been applied while cancelling admissions. 25. Mr. Vivek Rusia, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6883/2014 has submitted that father of the petitioner is a low paid employee and the petitioner has good academic record. It is also urged that initially the Committee did not find petitioner's involvement in the use of unfair means in the examination and it is not possible for a candidate to indulge in copying in the presence of invigilator. Our attention has also been invited to communication dated 30-1-2014 sent by the Director, Professional Examination Board to the Director, Medical Education, to contend that since examination was conducted by the Board in the year 2012 and students are prosecuting their studies in various Medical Colleges, therefore, Board has no authority to cancel the results of such students. 26. Mr. Arpan J. Pawar, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 7523/2014, 7525/2014, 7526/2014, 7860/2014 and 8137/2014 has submitted that no notice was issued to the petitioners before passing the impugned order and the same was passed in hot haste without properly examining the records. It is also submitted that impugned order has been passed on surmises and conjectures and there is no material available with the respondents for inculpating the petitioners in the case of unfair means. It is pointed out that petitioners have good academic profile and the statistical data prepared by respondent No. 3 cannot form the basis for any punitive action against the petitioners. It is also urged that the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have also cleared D-MAT Examination, 2011. It is pointed out that petitioners have good academic profile and the statistical data prepared by respondent No. 3 cannot form the basis for any punitive action against the petitioners. It is also urged that the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have also cleared D-MAT Examination, 2011. It is further urged that marks obtained by the petitioners are nowhere similar to alleged scorers. While referring to return filed by respondents, it is pointed out that there is a change in scan numbers of 248 candidates, yet results of only 133 candidates have been cancelled. It is also argued that there is change in date of birth of as many as 161 candidates, but change in scan number in respect of aforesaid candidates in the report has not been indicated. It is also argued that out of 26,115 roll numbers selected by the Board, only 1036 roll numbers were chosen for scrutiny and in many other cases where candidates have secured more or less same marks, no action has been taken. In this connection, our attention is invited to averments made in Para. 4 of the rejoinder. It is also urged that there was neither any report of use of unfair means by the petitioners from the invigilators, nor any report of illegal change of seating pattern. The Board has failed to place the OMR sheets of petitioners and the alleged scorers on record. While referring to page 153 of the return filed by respondents, it was pointed out that petitioner No. 2 was sitting in front row and not at the rear of the row and the Board is deliberately withholding the information sought for by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is also argued that document Nos. P-1321/c and P-1325/c, in which, the cases of the petitioners were shown to have been considered, have not been placed on record and there is no averment in the return that OMR sheets of all 26, 115 candidates have been examined. It is also submitted that petitioners in W.P. No. 7126/14 and W.P. No. 8137/14 were female candidates, who had appeared in the examination for the first time and, therefore, the allegation of the respondents that they acted as scorers, is incorrect. It is also submitted that petitioners in W.P. No. 7126/14 and W.P. No. 8137/14 were female candidates, who had appeared in the examination for the first time and, therefore, the allegation of the respondents that they acted as scorers, is incorrect. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in cases of Veer Pal Singh (supra) and Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India (supra). Learned Counsel has also referred to Paragraph 55 of the judgment referred by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ku. Pratibha Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others, W.P. No. 20342/2013. 27. Mr. Ritwik Parashar, learned Counsel for petitioners in W.P. No. 7542/2014 and W.P. No. 14458/2014 has submitted that the petitioners were sitting in the front row and, therefore, their involvement in copying is ruled out. It is also submitted that the case of the petitioners does not fall within the formula prescribed by the Board for ascertaining whether or not a candidate has indulged in use of unfair means. Mr. Anubhav Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 9444/2014 has submitted that there is difference in the marks obtained by the petitioner and that of the scorer. 28. Mr. R.K. Sanghi, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 9322/2014 has submitted that there was no sufficient time during the examination and, therefore, it was not possible for the candidates to indulge in copying. It is further submitted that scan number of the petitioner was not changed where as, the scan number of the beneficiary in W.P. No. 7527/2014 was changed. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been appearing in the Pre Medical Tests since year 2005 and has succeeded in the year 2010. It is also pointed out that the beneficiary as well as the scorer took admission in MBBS Course and both of them belong to State of Madhya Pradesh. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is ready to face the NARCO test. It is also argued that individuals have been charged with copying, therefore, the instant case is not a case of mass copying. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of Tushar Ranjan Sahu and 38 others Vs. It is also argued that individuals have been charged with copying, therefore, the instant case is not a case of mass copying. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of Tushar Ranjan Sahu and 38 others Vs. Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa and others, AIR 1997 Orissa 194. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Broom's Legal Maxims Tenth Edition and has referred to the maxims "De Non Apparentibus Et Non Existentibus Eadem Est Ratio" and "Potest Adduci Exceptio Ejusdem Rei Cujus Petitur Dissolutio". Learned Counsel in support of his submissions has also referred to the First Edition of the "Discipline of Law" by Lord Denning and to "Due Process of Law" First Edition by Abhinav Chandrachud. 29. Mr. Nishant Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 7527/2014 has adopted the submissions made by Mr. R.K. Sanghi, Advocate. Mr. A.T. Faridi, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 10851/2014 has submitted that in the facts of the case, the Board ought to have conducted fresh examination. 30. Mr. A.K. Bajpai, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 8273/2014 has submitted that Pre Medical Test, 2009 was not a case of mass copying, as out of around 20,000 candidates, the results of only 0.29% of the candidates have been cancelled and, therefore, the Board ought to have followed the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that formula evolved by the Board for ascertaining whether or not a candidate has indulged in mass copying has to be static and cannot be different for different years. 31. Mr. H.K. Upadhyaya, learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 10189/2014, 7800/2014, 8640/2014 and 8095/2014 has submitted that the petitioners are not involved in the tampering of roll numbers and while inviting our attention to page 160 of the return, it is contended that roll numbers of 161 candidates were tampered yet, no action has been taken against them. It is further submitted that percentage of cancellation of the results in the Pre Medical Tests of 2010 and 2011 are respectively 0.33% and 0.37% and, therefore, no inference can be drawn that candidates had indulged in mass copying in the said examinations. In rejoinder reply, it is highlighted that there is distinction between correlation and causation, and correlation does not imply causation. In rejoinder reply, it is highlighted that there is distinction between correlation and causation, and correlation does not imply causation. It is also submitted that the Board while taking action against the students has acted on probability. However, the data of match answers applied by the Board do not behave in normal probability distribution as the value of mean, median and mode is not equal. In support of his submissions, Mr. Upadhyaya has referred to the extracts taken out from the websites, namely, www.purplemath.com and en.wikipedia.org. 32. Mr. Aditiya Sanghi, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 7619/14 has submitted that in order dated 7-5-2014 the petitioner has been treated to be a scorer who had allegedly helped one Rajesh Yadav and Mohd. Ashfaq in copying. However, in order dated 24-4-2014, Mohd. Ashfaq has been shown as scorer who had helped one Raksha Maladhari in copying. It was also pointed out that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the formula prescribed by the respondent to ascertain whether the candidates had indulged in use of unfair means. It is pointed out that the entire case against the petitioner is based on suspicion and the fact that the petitioner had indulged in copying, is proved. 33. Learned Counsel while advancing arguments in W.P. No. 10414/2014 has submitted that the petitioner was sitting in front row facing the wall and therefore, it was not possible for him to indulge in copying. It is also submitted that it is alleged that the petitioner was a scorer, who had helped Anshuman Singh as well as Sant Kumar Maurya whereas, in order dated 24-4-2014, said Anshuman Singh has been shown to be a scorer. Learned Counsel while canvassing his submissions in W.P. Nos. 8108/2014 and 8094/2014 has submitted that petitioner in W.P. No. 8108/2014 has completed the MBBS Course and is working as Intern whereas, petitioner in W.P. No. 8094/2014 is a student of final year of MBBS Course. The case of the petitioners does not fail within the scope and ambit of formula prescribed by the respondents to ascertain whether the candidates had indulged in use of unfair means. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 7619/2014, 8094/2014, 8108/2014, 10414/2014, 10415/2014 and 10422/2014 has adopted the submissions of Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel. The case of the petitioners does not fail within the scope and ambit of formula prescribed by the respondents to ascertain whether the candidates had indulged in use of unfair means. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 7619/2014, 8094/2014, 8108/2014, 10414/2014, 10415/2014 and 10422/2014 has adopted the submissions of Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel. In W.P. No. 8371/2014, learned Counsel has submitted that petitioner is alleged to be a scorer in respect of the Pre Medical Test, 2008 and his case does not fall within the purview of formula prescribed by respondents. In W.P. No. 10420/2014, it is submitted that the petitioner had taken admission in Private Medical College in the year 2012 against the Government seat. 34. Mr. Amitabh Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 7121/2014 and 7825/2014 has invited our attention to page 7 of the compilation filed on behalf of the Board and has submitted that the formula adopted by the Board for ascertaining whether the candidates have resorted to unfair means is obsolete and certain more data are required to verify whether it is authentic. It is further submitted that the petitioner in W.P. No. 7121/2014 had sought opinion of the experts orally and the experts have opined that there is no logic of adopting the criteria evolved by the Experts Committee of the Board to ascertain whether a candidate had indulged in use of unfair means. It is also submitted that the software as well the documents mentioned in I.A. No. 9932/2014 and I.A. No. 9060/2014 in W.P. No. 7121/2014 ought to have been supplied to the petitioner as the basis of the formula is not discernible to the petitioner. It is also submitted that though an inquisitorial enquiry was undertaken by the Board to ascertain the facts, yet the final order was passed by the Board on 3-5-2014. While inviting our attention to page 3 of the return, it is contended that 300 students from Government Kasturba Higher Secondary School have appeared, out of which 16 students have been named, either as beneficiary or as scorer. It is further submitted that since the examination was of objective type, therefore, possibility of candidates either answering the correct answers or the probable correct answers was very high and, therefore, the percentage of mis-match is on higher side. It is further submitted that since the examination was of objective type, therefore, possibility of candidates either answering the correct answers or the probable correct answers was very high and, therefore, the percentage of mis-match is on higher side. It is also submitted that non-supply of data as required by the petitioner vide I.A. No. 9932/2014 and I.A. No. 9060/2014 has prejudiced the petitioner. It is further submitted that there are seven well-settled grounds for exclusion of principles of natural justice, namely, statutory exclusion, Legislative Act, necessity, undisputed facts, confidentiality, preventive action, emergency and where nothing unfair can be presumed. However, none of the grounds are available in the instant case, so as to warrant exclusion of principles of natural justice. The impugned action has been taken by the respondents in hot haste and no explanation has been offered for exclusion of principles of natural justice. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Competition Commission of India (supra). It is also urged that even though in a case of enquiry pertaining to mass copying, provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 may not apply, however, the documents produced in the enquiry, which are relied upon, had to be proved and if the party wants inspection of the documents, the same should be granted. It is also submitted that in a proceeding before the quasi-judicial authority, the principles of natural justice would apply and no ground is available for exclusion of principles of natural justice in the fact situation of the present case. In support of aforesaid submissions, reference has been made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of M/s. Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen and others, (1971) 2 SCC 617 and Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad Vs. Ghanshyam Das Gupta and others, AIR 1962 SC 1110 . 35. It is further submitted that the officials of the Board were biased and the action against the petitioners has been taken in premeditated manner, which is evident from the order. In support of aforesaid submission, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and another, (1999) 2 SCC 21 . In support of aforesaid submission, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and another, (1999) 2 SCC 21 . It is also argued that even if the documents were not required by the candidate, then too such documents ought to have been supplied to the candidate. In support of aforesaid contention, reference has been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited (supra). It is also pointed out that the petitioner has a good academic record. While referring to page 31 of the second compilation filed on behalf of the respondents, it is pointed out that the formula for ascertaining the fact of copying, has not been explained by the respondents. It is also submitted that the petitioner in W.P. No. 7121/2014 is a student of II Year of MBBS Course, whereas the petitioner in W.P. No. 7825/2014 has completed his MBBS Course and is undertaking internship. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioners has sought leave of this Court to produce certain additional facts. Thereupon, following order was passed on 10-9-2014:-- "10-9-2014 I.A. No. 11946/2014 & I.A. No. 11944/2014: Note on Board: these matters have been mentioned by Mr. Amitabh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners with a request to take up the same along with the group of cases, which are presently being heard by the Court as overnight part heard cases. In these matters, the petitioners invited order of the Court on Interlocutory Applications (I.A. No. 9060/2014, LA. No. 9932/2014 in W.P. No. 7121/2014; I.A. Nos. 9933/2014, I.A. No. 9073/2014 in W.P. No. 7418/2014, I.A. No. 9074/2014, I.A. No. 9936/2014 in W.P. No. 7825/2014 and I.A. No. 9075/2014 and 9934/2014 in W.P. No. 8056/2014), for issuing direction to the respondents to supply stated documents as a precondition for proceeding with the hearing of the man writ petitions. That request was, however, negatived vide order dated 3-9-2014 with liberty, as the petitioners intended to challenge the said decision before the Supreme Court. The petitioners are, however, now advised to pursue their main petitions before this Court without challenging the said decision before the Supreme Court, but, with liberty to the petitioners to agitate the points urged and referred to in the order dated 3-9-2014 at the appropriate stage. The petitioners are, however, now advised to pursue their main petitions before this Court without challenging the said decision before the Supreme Court, but, with liberty to the petitioners to agitate the points urged and referred to in the order dated 3-9-2014 at the appropriate stage. Above mentioned formal applications have been filed on behalf of these petitioners for preponing the date of hearing of the writ petitions and to hear the same along with the overnight part heard companion cases, which are already listed before the Court today. The application however, is not supported by any affidavit of the petitioners. Learned Counsel submits that due to paucity of time, he was not able to obtain affidavit of the petitioners but he has received clear instructions on telephone from concerned petitioner(s) to proceed with the hearing of these writ petitions. Further, it is noticed that the application as presented, is very vague and does not specifically state that the petitioners are interested in proceeding with the hearing of these matters in spite of the order dated 3-9-2014 passed by the Division Bench in these petitions. Learned Counsel for the petitioners/applicants submits that the subject applications presented by him in the Court this morning be ignored and instead, he may be permitted to file a formal application incorporating all aspects, as are necessary for entertaining the request for preponing the date of hearing of these writ petitions. He undertakes to file such application with appropriate reliefs including to dispense with the filing of affidavit of the petitioners for the reasons to be recorded in the application and to treat the proposed application as having been made by the Advocate himself. He further prays that until such formal application is filed, the request, which he proposes to make in the said application, be treated as oral request made by him across the Bar and proceed on that basis. This request is made because the arguments of the petitioners in companion cases, which are listed as overnight part heard cases, are already concluded and the reply of the State will begin from today. Before that, he intends to make his submission on behalf of the aforesaid two petitioners on condition stated hitherto. This request is made because the arguments of the petitioners in companion cases, which are listed as overnight part heard cases, are already concluded and the reply of the State will begin from today. Before that, he intends to make his submission on behalf of the aforesaid two petitioners on condition stated hitherto. We show indulgence to these petitioners and permit the Advocate for the petitioners to address us on merits of the writ petitions with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the opinion recorded in the decision dated 3-9-2014, if and when occasion arises at the appropriate stage. The undertaking given by Mr. Amitabh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners that formal application regarding the abovesaid position will be filed in the course of the day made across the Bar, is accepted as the petitioners should not suffer, as the matter would become fate accompli for them if adverse judgment is rendered in the companion cases. We further place on record the statement made by Mr. Amitabh Gupta, Advocate that although he is appearing as Advocate in about 75 cases, which have been deferred on his request to 6th October, 2014, only two petitioners have agreed to abide by his advice to pursue the writ petitions before this Court and the rest of the petitioners may decide to withdraw the respective petitions filed by them with liberty to file civil suit for appropriate reliefs against the orders passed by the Competent Authority, which decision will be taken by them very shortly. Hence, formal application for preponing the hearing of those matters is not made on their behalf, though Mr. Gupta is common Advocate for the petitioners in all those cases. I.A. No. 11946/2014 and I.A. No. 11944/2014 are accordingly disposed of on the above terms. Shri Amitabh Gupta is called upon to proceed with his argument in the main writ petitions forthwith, so that the Advocate for the respondents can give a consolidated reply (argument) in respect of all the petitioners together thereafter. Accordingly, Shri Amitabh Gupta commenced his oral arguments in the main above-numbered writ petitions. Later on: At 12.40 p.m. At this stage, when one more than one hour has been spent on hearing Shri Amitabh Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioners, he submits that the petitioners would like to rely on new facts including academic performance of the petitioners in other examinations conducted during the same time. Later on: At 12.40 p.m. At this stage, when one more than one hour has been spent on hearing Shri Amitabh Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioners, he submits that the petitioners would like to rely on new facts including academic performance of the petitioners in other examinations conducted during the same time. No such pleading is found in the writ petition. Question of permitting the petitioners to amend the pleadings at this belated stage and more so keeping in mind the indulgence shown by allowing preponement of hearing of the writ petitions on the request and assurance given by the Advocate across the Bar as recorded in the earlier part of the order, cannot be countenanced. Entertaining such request would inevitably result in deferring the hearing of all the matters, which ought to be eschewed. For, hearing in other connected matters is already continuing for more than four full days (i.e., 4-9-2014, 5-9-2014, 8-9-2014 and 9-9-2014). Therefore, we must record our disapproval about the manner in which the matter is being presented by Shri Amitabh Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioners. For, if his request is to be accepted, it would result in protracting the hearing of all the cases. Hence, this prayer is rejected." 36. In rejoinder reply, it is submitted that there is irrationality on the part of the Board in conducting the examination and the same is being imputed to the petitioners. It is also submitted that the cases of all the candidates were not subjected to scrutiny on the basis of the formula of Unfair Score evolved by the Board and the averments made in Paragraph 6.4 in Writ Petition No. 7121/2014 have not been rebutted by the Board. It is contended that the possibility of several candidates having secured similar marks has also not been explained, as possibility of answering probable answers is high. It is also urged that the Board should have taken into consideration the cases of all the selected candidates while undertaking the process of cancellation of examination results of all the candidates, who have allegedly indulged in unfair means and by not doing so, unequals have been treated as equals and the action of the Board suffers from irrationality. It is also pointed out that Brochure issued by the Board should have contained a stipulation that if candidates secure similar marks, their results were likely to be cancelled. It is also pointed out that Brochure issued by the Board should have contained a stipulation that if candidates secure similar marks, their results were likely to be cancelled. It is submitted that this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has the jurisdiction to determine the disputed questions of fact. In support of the aforesaid submissions, our attention has been invited to relief Clauses 7.3 and 7.4 in Writ Petition No. 7825/2014 and reliance has been placed on the decisions in Babubhai Muljibhai Patel Vs. Nandlal Khodidas Barot and others, AIR 1974 SC 2105 and Om Prakash Vs. State of Haryana and others, (1971) 3 SCC 792 . 37. Lastly, it is urged that no complaint has been made by anybody immediately after the examination. It is also urged that the rules of game cannot be changed after examination, as formula to ascertain the fact whether or not a candidate had indulged in use of unfair means was evolved after the examination was held, which amounts to change of rules of game. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decisions in M/s. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and others, AIR 2000 SC 2272 and Ramesh Kumar Vs. High Court of Delhi and another, AIR 2010 SC 3714 . Learned Counsel has also referred to the decision in Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11 , to invite our attention to scope of judicial review. 38. Mr. K.C. Ghildiyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7295/2014 submitted that by an order dated 27-3-2014, the admission of the petitioner of Pre Medical Test, 2013 has been cancelled. It is further submitted that the impugned order is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without any justification. It is also urged that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 39. In Writ Petition Nos. It is further submitted that the impugned order is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without any justification. It is also urged that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 39. In Writ Petition Nos. 1918/2014, 7529/2014, 7530/2014, 7682/2014, 7776/2014, 7856/2014, 7861/2014, 7876/2014, 7881/2014, 7891/2014, 7926/2014, 7982/2014, 8023/2014, 8024/2014, 8030/2014, 8048/2014, 8049/2014, 8050/2014, 8051/2014, 8052/2014, 8068/2014, 8069/2014, 8083/2014, 8144/2014, 8167/2014, 8488/2014, 8985/2014, 8990/2014, 8993/2014, 9318/2014, 9321/2014, 9326/2014, 9327/2014, 9340/2014, 9413/2014, 9415/2014, 9466/2014, 9475/2014, 9577/2014, 9583/2014, 9584/2014, 9585/2014, 9588/2014, 9595/2014, 9596/2014, 9624/2014, 9798/2014, 10149/2014, 10151/2014, 10153/2014, 10155/2014, 10156/2014, 10158/2014, 10159/2014, 10160/2014, 10161/2014, 10162/2014, 10163/2014, 10164/2014, 10165/2014, 10221/2014, 10390/2014, 10391/2014, 10418/2014, 10503/2014, 10507/2014, No. 11097/2014, 11099/2014, 11106/2014, 11112/2014, 11119/2014, 11153/2014, 11491/2014, 11493/2014, 11496/2014, 11510/2014, 9690/2014 and 8817/2014, no Counsel has addressed us separately, therefore, we presume that they have adopted the arguments already made on behalf of the petitioners in other matters. 40. Mr. P.K. Kaurav, learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand has invited our attention to various paragraphs of the order dated 11-4-2014 passed in W.P. No. 20342/2013, Ku. Pratibha Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others, and has submitted that the issues raised in the instant writ petition are covered by the decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. It is further submitted that the common elements, namely tampering/mass copying of roll numbers, involvement of some technical professional racketeers, tampering/mass copying only in selected cities and selected centres and high percentage of matching of correct and incorrect answers in selected cities and centres and the opinion furnished by the Special Task Force in respect of Pre Medical Tests, 2008 to 2012 as well as 2013 exist and, therefore, it can safely be held that candidates even in the Pre Medical Tests of 2008 to 2012 have indulged in mass copying. It is further submitted that on account of reevaluation made in the course of investigation, a decision was taken to scrutinise the cases of the candidates, who had appeared in the Pre Medical Tests between the years 2008 to 2012. The formula evolved by the Computer Experts Committee for ascertaining whether or not the candidates had indulged in use of unfair means, is logical. 41. The formula evolved by the Computer Experts Committee for ascertaining whether or not the candidates had indulged in use of unfair means, is logical. 41. Learned Counsel for the respondents has invited our attention to various pages of the compilation filed by him and has pointed out the seating plan as well as the documents on record to contend that most of the candidates, who had indulged in copying were sitting at the back of the row, in certain centres and in selected cities. It was further submitted that the candidates whose matching answers were low and who did not qualify in the examination were excluded from the purview of scrutiny and, therefore, no action was taken against them. However, an undertaking has been given by learned Counsel for the respondent before us that action against all the candidates who had indulged in the case of mass copying would be taken as was done in respect of Pre Medical Test, 2013. It is also submitted that action for cancellation of results of the candidates has been taken on the basis of data, which were available with the Board as well as the record, seating plan and the information, which was supplied by the Special Task Force. It is also urged that material on record leads to inevitable conclusion that identified candidates had indulged in use of unfair means. It is submitted as under:-- (a) The roll numbers were allotted to concerned candidates in a particular pattern and in deviation of prescribed method/norm. (b) The roll numbers are clearly mis-matching as they have been realigned to facilitate the concerned candidates to indulge in copying. (c) The same officers, who had manipulated the data and had realigned the roll number of the year 2013 namely Nitin Mohindra, Senior System Analyst, Ajay Kumar Sen, System Analyst and C.K. Mishra, Assistant Programmer were Incharge and responsible for the activity and the same pattern has been adopted for the years 2008 to 2012. (d) There is high percentage of matching of correct as well as wrong answers given by scorer and the concerned candidate as has been noticed from the respective answer sheets. (d) There is high percentage of matching of correct as well as wrong answers given by scorer and the concerned candidate as has been noticed from the respective answer sheets. (e) Many candidates despite scoring very high marks in 2011 and 2012 did not take admission in the MBBS Course, which indicates that they appeared in the examination only as scorers to help the candidates sitting behind or in front of them, as the case may be. Many candidates, who appeared in 2008, 2009 and 2010 examinations and whose results have been cancelled by the Board, have taken admissions but they had appeared in PMT examinations in the previous years also and performed poorly. The marks scored by these candidates in their previous attempts have been mentioned in Annexure R-8. (f) The irregularities have been found to be in increasing manner from 2008 to 20-13, which also goes to show a gradual increasing trend of commission of irregularities in MBBS Examination for facilitating commission of unfair means by selected candidates. (g) The graphical chart clearly shows unusual trend of average matching and mismatching of answers in comparison of candidates whose results are cancelled and all students. (h) Mass copying has taken place at particular centres and in particular cities where the candidates outside from the State of Madhya Pradesh alongwith the candidates from Madhya Pradesh have appeared, at times concentrated number in one room of the centre. The candidates, who have acted as scorers, even though secured higher marks, have neither taken admission in the MBBS Course nor have filed writ petitions before this Court challenging the cancellation of the results. 42. It is also urged that aforesaid indisputable facts emerging from the official record placed before the Court, are sufficient to justify the decision taken by the authorities and to arrive at the conclusion that identified candidates against whom action has been taken were involved in organised mass copying and had resorted to unfair means during examination. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel has relied on the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Subhash Chandra Sinha, AIR 1970 SC 1269 , Maharashtra State Board Vs. K.S. Gandhi, (1991) 2 SCC 716 , Union of India Vs. Anand Kumar, (1994) 5 SCC 663 , Biswa Ranjan Sahu Vs. Sushanta Kumar, (1996) 5 SCC 365 , M.C. Mehta Vs. Subhash Chandra Sinha, AIR 1970 SC 1269 , Maharashtra State Board Vs. K.S. Gandhi, (1991) 2 SCC 716 , Union of India Vs. Anand Kumar, (1994) 5 SCC 663 , Biswa Ranjan Sahu Vs. Sushanta Kumar, (1996) 5 SCC 365 , M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 237 , Aligarh Muslim University Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan, AIR 2000 SC 2783 , Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. UP. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and others, (2003) 8 SCC 311 , State of Maharashtra Vs. Jalgaon Municipal Corporation, (2003) 9 SCC 731 , Secretary, A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institute Vs. Pindiga, (2007) 13 SCC 352 , Chief General Manager, BSNL Vs. Surendranath Pandey, 2012 (1) SLJ 73, Tushar Ranjan Sahu (supra), M.P. Board of Secondary Education Vs. Shahi Tomar, 2004 (1) MPLJ 455 , Chairman JNK State Board Vs. Faiyaz Ahmad, (2000) 3 SCC 59 , B. Ramanjini and others Vs. State of A.P., (2002) 5 SCC 533 , All India Railway Recruitment Board Vs. K. Shyam Kumar, (2010) 6 SCC 614 , Board of High School and Intermediate Education Vs. Bagleshwar Prasad, AIR 1966 SC 875 , Prem Prakash Kaluniya Vs. Punjab University, (1973) 3 SCC 424 , Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal Vs. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti, (1998) 9 SCC 236 , UPSC Vs. Jagannath Mishra, (2003) 9 SCC 237 , Director, Students Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management Nutrition and Catering Technology Chandigarh, (2009) 1 SCC 59 and Pravamayee Nayak Vs. Council of Higher Secondary Education, AIR 2003 Orissa 47. 43. In respect of Writ Petition No. 7295/2014, learned Counsel for the Board, while referring to the return, has submitted that the controversy involved in the petition is covered by the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Pratibha Singh (supra). While referring to Paragraph 5 of the return it is pointed out that a candidate having roll number 545059, who was sitting in front of the petitioner in the examination hall was from New Delhi, who had opted Shahdol as examination centre and the petitioner who had roll number 545060 and sitting behind the aforesaid candidate from New Delhi belongs to Balaghat, had chosen Shahdol as examination centre. It is further submitted that in the order it has been mentioned that seventy questions were answered in similar manner by the scorer as well as the petitioner and as per information furnished by the Special Task Force the candidate bearing roll number 545059 and the petitioner were in contact with the middleman and their roll numbers were tampered and they had deliberately opted for examination centre, Shahdol whereas for the candidate from New Delhi, Gwalior was the nearest examination centre. Accordingly, it has been held that the petitioner had indulged in use of unfair means and her examination result has rightly been cancelled. 44. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. Before proceeding to deal with the issues involved in the instant writ petitions, we deem it appropriate to deal with Interlocutory Applications No. 9932/2014 and 9060/2014 filed in Writ Petition No. 7121/2014. By means of I.A. No. 9060/2014, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7121/2014 has sought for the production of documents/software/information. In I.A. No. 9932/2014 the petitioner has, inter alia, submitted that the Board had supplied the written programming of the Software, namely, CMP 200--the programme used by Joint Controller (Computer) for analysing the answer sheets of the candidates. However, information, as to said programme, is deficient in following respects:-- "(a) Details of the operating system on which the given program CMP 200. PRG was compiled/executed. (b) Soft copy of the software/compiler/platform, which was used for the given program CMP 200. PRG. (c) Algorithm/flow chart/state machine used to construct/write the program named CMP 200. PRG. (d) Input and output files used to get the result as mentioned in the order impugned." The aforesaid information is being sought by the petitioners on the basis of opinion given by Assistant Professors of Pt. Dwarka Prasad Mishra, IIIT-DM, Jabalpur. 45. During the course of submissions when a query was put to learned Counsel for the petitioners, whether the petitioners had sought the opinion of the experts in writing, learned Counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that he had sought opinion of the experts orally. 46. We have carefully gone through the opinion given by the experts. 45. During the course of submissions when a query was put to learned Counsel for the petitioners, whether the petitioners had sought the opinion of the experts in writing, learned Counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that he had sought opinion of the experts orally. 46. We have carefully gone through the opinion given by the experts. In the opinion relied upon by the petitioners the experts have stated that the formula does not seem to be based on any scientific background and impugned orders by which the results of the candidates have been cancelled are silent as to any statistical analysis is available in relation to the question paper with respect to the nature/pattern of answers of the questions contained in it. The experts have further stated that the impugned orders of cancellation of results of the candidates are silent as to whether any expert opinion has been taken with respect to answers and question in order to know the relevancy of four options to the question, as many a times, two options are easily recognised as irrelevant, thereby increasing the probability of opting same correct or incorrect options out of remaining two because of seeming proximity/similarity between them. The experts have also stated that the impugned orders do not mention the contents stated in Para. 4 of the opinion. The background in which the experts have given their opinion is not discernible to us, as the opinion from them was sought orally. 47. An opinion of an expert has to be understood in the context of query put to him. It is pertinent to note that neither the opinion has been given by the experts on the letter head nor any affidavit in support of the opinion, has been filed. Besides that, we are afraid that while criticising the impugned orders, the experts have travelled beyond the scope of opinion, as experts cannot be permitted to adjudge the validity of the orders passed by the Board, which the Court alone is empowered to examine. The experts have not given any opinion that the formula evolved by the Committee of experts of the Board is either impermissible or replete with palpable error or by using the formula, the cases of the candidates, who had resorted to unfair means, cannot be identified. The experts have not given any opinion that the formula evolved by the Committee of experts of the Board is either impermissible or replete with palpable error or by using the formula, the cases of the candidates, who had resorted to unfair means, cannot be identified. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid expert opinion, the petitioners cannot be permitted to seek production of documents/software/information as prayed by them in I.A. No. 9932/2014. It is well-settled in law that all the grounds for passing order by an Administrative Authority need not be mentioned in the order itself, but can be relied upon contemporaneous material later on, in which larger public interest is involved. [See: K. Shyam Kumar (supra)]. Therefore, there is no need of mentioning the basis of formula in the impugned orders of cancellation of results of the candidates. All the material information, which has been taken into account by the Board in decision making process while passing the impugned orders and which has been taken into consideration by this Court has been supplied to the petitioners and, therefore, question of prejudice on account of non-supply of the documents, as demanded, does not arise. 48. Now, we may deal with the core issue of the case, i.e., whether candidates had indulged in use of unfair means, i.e., mass copying in Pre Medical Tests 2008 to 2012. The expression "mass copying" has not been defined in the Rules governing the Pre Medical Test. It has, therefore, to be understood in its common parlance. In Tushar Ranjan Sahu (supra), it has been held that what could be considered mass copying cannot be laid down with mathematical precision and has to be decided in the facts of each case. Now, we may refer to the facts year-wise to ascertain whether the candidates had indulged in mass copying. The Committee constituted to identify the candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2012 in its report, inter alia, found that:-- (i) Roll numbers of 701 candidates were tampered after their generation and there was departure from settled norms for allotment of roll numbers in respect of aforesaid candidates. The Committee constituted to identify the candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2012 in its report, inter alia, found that:-- (i) Roll numbers of 701 candidates were tampered after their generation and there was departure from settled norms for allotment of roll numbers in respect of aforesaid candidates. (ii) In Bhopal, in examination centres, namely, Raja Bhoj Higher Secondary School, Bhopal Government Kamla Nehru Higher Secondary School, Bhopal; and Government Kasturba Higher Secondary School, Bhopal, 12, 18, 22 candidates respectively were sitting in pairs at the end of the row whose roll numbers were tampered and their right match answers and wrong match answers are similar. (iii) Similarly, in Indore in examination centres, namely, Shri K.B. Patel Gujrati Girls Higher Secondary School, Indore; PMB Gujarati Science College, Indore; and RRMB Gujarati Higher Secondary School, Indore, 46, 44 and 116 candidates respectively were sitting in pairs, whose roll numbers were tampered and their right match answers and wrong match answers are identical. (iv) In Government India Gandhi Girls College, Shahdol, 14 candidates were sitting in pairs and their right match answers and wrong match answers are identical. (v) The candidates whose roll numbers were altered and who were sitting in pairs, one of the candidates from the pair was from outside the State and the other candidates in most of the cases did not belong to the city where the examination centre was located. For the facility of reference relevant extract of the chart annexed with the Compilation I at page 165 as well as seating plan of the candidates is reproduced below, which shows that candidates sitting in pairs in selected cities and in selected examination centers have secured same marks and one of the candidates of the pair was from outside the State of Madhya Pradesh, and other candidates in most of the cases did not belong to the city where examination centre was located. 49. Thus, from perusal of the report of the Computer Experts Committee, it is apparent that roll numbers of 701 candidates were altered in deviation from the settled norms for allotment of roll numbers, i.e., according to date of birth and month of birth and the aforesaid candidates were made to sit in pairs in selected examination centers in selected cities and the marks obtained by them are also nearly identical. There is striking similarity in the right match answers and wrong match answers, which cannot be a coincidence. It is also pertinent to mention here that the candidates who acted as scorers, i.e., who facilitated copying, were mostly from out of State and had chosen the particular examination centers situate far away from their home town. Similarly, most of the candidates, who indulged in copying also chose that very particular centers chosen by the scorers, which are situate away from their places of residence, even though examination centre was available at their place of residence or nearby their places of residence and they were sitting in pairs with the scorers. This again cannot be a coincidence. It is also noteworthy that, scorers who were mostly from outside the State of Madhya Pradesh and had secured good marks have neither taken admission nor have filed writ petitions against the orders by which their examination results have been cancelled by the Board. We may also take note of the statement made by Mr. P.K. Kaurav, learned Counsel for respondents, that 131 candidates whose roll numbers were tampered and opted for Indore as examination centre were outside the State of Madhya Pradesh or were not from Indore as per address furnished by them. 50. The Committee constituted to identify the candidates, who had indulged in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2011 in its report, inter alia, found as under:-- (i) In examination centres, namely, Government Kasturba Higher Secondary School, Government Kamla Nehru Girls Higher Secondary School and Government Nutan Subhash Higher Secondary School in Bhopal 16, 24 and 3 candidates respectively were sitting in pairs at the end of the row and their right match answers and wrong match answers are similar. (ii) In examination centers, namely, Government Maharani Laxmi Bai P.G. Girls College, Mata Jija Bai Government Girls P.G. College Moti Tabela, Government Bal Vinay Mandir Excellence Higher Secondary School, Swami Vivekanand Government Model Higher Secondary School, Government Ahilyashram Higher Secondary School, Government Maharaj Shivajirao Higher Secondary School, PMB Gujrati Science College, RRMB Gujrati Higher Secondary School and Shri K.V. Patel Gujrati Middle School in Indore 4, 6, 10, 2, 10, 10, 4, 4 and 2 candidates respectively were sitting in pairs in the end of the row and their right match answers and wrong match answers are similar. (iii) In Government P.G. College, Khargone, 04 candidates were sitting in pairs at the end of the row and their right match answers and wrong match answers are identical. (iv) The candidates whose roll numbers were altered and out of the candidates, who were sitting in pair, one of the candidate of the pair was from outside the State and the other candidate in most of the cases did not belong to the city where the examination centre was located. For the facility of reference, relevant extracts of the chart annexed with the Compilation-I is at pages 131 and 161 as well as seating plan of the candidates and relevant of right match and wrong match answers of the candidates, are reproduced below which shows that candidates appearing in selected cities and in selected examination centres have secured same marks and their right match answers and wrong match answers are similar. From such candidates sitting in pairs, one of the candidate was from outside the State of Madhya Pradesh and the another candidate had chosen the examination centre situated away from his place of residence even though examination centre was available either at his place of residence or nearby or was a local candidate residing nearby the examination centre. 51. The Committee constituted to identify the candidates, who had indulged in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2010 in its report, inter alia, found as under:-- "(i) In examination centers, namely, Government Kasturba Higher Secondary School, Government, Bhopal; Government P.G. College, Dhar; Government Holkar Science College, Indore and Government Malav Girls Higher Secondary School, Indore and Government Excellent Bal Vinay Mandir, Indore and Government P.G. College, Khargone, 2, 4, 50, 2, 14, 18 candidates respectively were seated in pairs at the end of the row and their right watch answers and wrong match answers are identical. (ii) All the aforesaid candidates, who were seated in pairs have received similar marks." For the facility of reference relevant extracts of the charts annexed with the Compilation-I at pages 27 and 124 and relevant extracts of roll number-wise chart tampering in roll numbers and relevant extract of chart showing similarity in right match answers and wrong match answers of such candidates, who were sitting in pairs are reproduced below. The aforesaid relevant extract establishes the fact that the scan numbers of the candidates were tampered so as to change their roll numbers to enable them to sit in pair and there is striking similarity in right match and wrong match answers of such candidates. The same reads as under:-- 52. The Committee constituted to identify the candidates, who had indulged in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2009 in its report, inter alia, found as under:-- "(i) In examination centers, namely, Government MLB Girls School, Guna; M.B. Khalsa College, Indore; Maharaja Ranjeet Singh College of Professional Science, Indore; Central India Institute of Technology, Indore; Trilok Chand Jain Higher Secondary School, Indore; Government Malav Girls Higher Secondary School, Indore; and Government Holkar Science College, Indore the roll numbers of the candidates were altered and they were sitting in pairs in the aforesaid examination. It was found by the Committee that such candidates were sitting at the end of the row and their right match answers and wrong match answers are identical. (ii) It was found by the Committee that 2, 5, 4, 3, 3, 30, 3, 4 and 31 candidates were sitting in pairs in the aforesaid examination centre respectively whose roll numbers were tampered and whose right match answers and wrong match answers are identical." For the facility of reference relevant extracts of the chart annexed with the Compilation-I at page 22 are reproduced below, which show that candidates appearing in selected cities and in selected examination centers have secured same marks: 53. The Committee constituted to identify the candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2008 in its report, inter alia, found as under:-- "(i) In examination centers, namely, Government Holkar Science College, Indore; Trilokchand Jain Higher Secondary School, Indore; Government Arts & Commerce College, Indore; Government Madhav Science College, Ujjain the candidates whose roll numbers were altered were sitting in pairs in the aforesaid examination. (ii) The Committee further found that right match answers and wrong match answers of the aforesaid candidates, who were sitting in pairs were identical. (iii) It was found by the Committee that 20, 7, 12 and 3 candidates were sitting next to each other in the aforesaid examination centers. (ii) The Committee further found that right match answers and wrong match answers of the aforesaid candidates, who were sitting in pairs were identical. (iii) It was found by the Committee that 20, 7, 12 and 3 candidates were sitting next to each other in the aforesaid examination centers. (iv) The Committee further found that the marks secured by such candidates in Pre Medical Test, 2008 are identical." For the facility of reference relevant extracts of the chart annexed with the Compilation-I at page 19 are reproduced below, which show that candidates appearing in selected cities and in selected examination centers have secured same marks. The fact that the candidates have indulged in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Tests of 2008 to 2012 is also evident from the following chart mentioned at page 182 of Compilation 1, which shows that in cases where the results of the examinations have been cancelled, the average of wrong match answers as compared to the general average of wrong match answers given by the candidates, who were not involved in use of unfair means, is much higher:-- 54. Another aspect of the matter, which is worth noticing is that though large number of candidates who were qualified for admission in medical colleges yet they did not take admission in the medical colleges whose results were subsequently cancelled on account of their involvement in mass copying, reinforces the facts inferred by the authorities that they acted as scorers and this fact is evident from the following chart:-- 55. No explanation has been offered on behalf of the petitioners as to why the roll numbers allotted to the petitioners were not in conformity with the norm prescribed by the Board for allotment of roll numbers and why in case of the petitioners and the candidates, who have acted as scorers, there is similarity in the right match answers as well as wrong match answers. We may also state that in an enquiry such as in the present case, the Board was justified in proceeding on the basis of indisputable circumstances pointing finger towards involvement of the concerned candidates and record its subjective satisfaction in that behalf. We may also state that in an enquiry such as in the present case, the Board was justified in proceeding on the basis of indisputable circumstances pointing finger towards involvement of the concerned candidates and record its subjective satisfaction in that behalf. The Committee has arrived at the conclusion that candidates had indulged in mass copying in Pre Medical Tests, 2008 to 2012, on the basis of data and records available with Board, report of the Computer Experts Committee and information furnished by the Special Task Force. Thus, the facts narrated supra leads to inevitable conclusion that the candidates whose results have been cancelled have indulged in mass copying in Pre Medical Tests, 2008 to 2012. 56. Before proceeding to deal with the common contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners it is noteworthy to mention here that the results of 439 candidates who had indulged in unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2013 were cancelled. The candidates approached this Court by filing several writ petitions, which were decided by the common order dated 11-4-2014 passed in a batch of writ petitions headed by Writ Petition No. 20342/2013, Ku. Pratibha Singh (minor) Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others. The Division Bench of this Court by a detailed and judgment dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioners therein, most of which have again been raised in some form or the other in this batch of writ petitions. It is pertinent to mention here that the order dated 11-4-2014 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions has attained finality as the Special Leave Petition preferred against the said order (dated 11-4-2014 passed in batch of writ petitions) has been dismissed by Supreme Court vide order dated 8-8-2014 passed in Special Leave Petition Nos. 18791-18792. In order to appreciate the fact that some of the issues raised in these writ petitions have already been examined in detail and extensively by the Division Bench of this Court in said writ petitions, it would be apposite to refer to the following chart:-- 57. Since the aforesaid issues have already been dealt with in extenso in the order passed in the case of Pratibha Singh (supra), which has been upheld by the Supreme Court, therefore, it is not necessary for us to further deal with those contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in this regard. Since the aforesaid issues have already been dealt with in extenso in the order passed in the case of Pratibha Singh (supra), which has been upheld by the Supreme Court, therefore, it is not necessary for us to further deal with those contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in this regard. Therefore, we proceed to deal with other issues. 58. The petitioners have taken a stand that the formula applied for ascertaining the unfair means score is required to be explained and the expert opinion is not beyond the scope of judicial review and same can be examined by this Court. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Natwar Singh (supra), East Coast Railway (supra) and Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited (supra). In view of the stand taken by the petitioners with regard to the basis of the formula evolved by the Board, we called upon the Board to explain the same to reassure ourselves and not to sit over the opinion by the experts as Court of appeal, in pursuance of which Mr. A.P. Shrivastava, the then Chairman of the Board and Dr. Santosh Kumar Gandhi, Joint Controller of the Board appeared before us. The qualification of Mr. A.P. Shrivastava is B.Sc. in Mathematics, Physics & Statistics and M.Sc. in Mathematics from Allahabad University. He has also qualified IAS examination with the subjects--Mathematics and Physics. Mr. A.P. Shrivastava had an excellent academic record and he has been awarded National Science Talent Research Scholarship from HCERC. Similarly, Mr. Santosh Kumar Gandhi holds the Bachelor Degree in Electronics and Master Degree and Ph.D. in Computer Applications from Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal. Mr. A.P. Shrivastava has stated before us as follows:-- "(1) Average or Mean of a set of measurements indicates the value around which the values of the measurement are centered. The Standard Deviation of a set of measurements indicates the variability or dispersion around the average. A large number of random variables observed in nature possess a frequency distribution that is approximately mound-shaped, which is known as Normal Probability Distribution. (2) If µ is the mean and s is the Standard Deviation of a distribution of measurements that is approximately mound-shaped or Normal, then the following Empirical Rules applies:-- (i) The interval (µ ± s) contains approximately 68.27% of the measurements. (2) If µ is the mean and s is the Standard Deviation of a distribution of measurements that is approximately mound-shaped or Normal, then the following Empirical Rules applies:-- (i) The interval (µ ± s) contains approximately 68.27% of the measurements. (ii) The interval (µ ± 2 s) contains approximately 95.45% of the measurements. (iii) The interval (µ ± 3 s) contains approximately 99.73% of the measurements. The above empirical rule is also called the three sigma rule. This empirical rule is often used to quickly get a rough probability estimate of something given its standard deviation, if the population is assumed normal, thus also a simple test for outliers (if the population is assumed normal). (3) For each question, there was only one correct answer but three incorrect answers in the objective type examination of PMT. Therefore, the number of incorrect matching answers indicates the higher likelihood of the candidates having helped each other in answering questions. On the other hand, the number of mismatch answers for a pair of candidates indicates the independent application of mind of the candidates. If the mismatch number is relatively large, the likelihood of the candidates having helped each other in answering questions is low. The inference about collusive copying of answers by a pair of candidates sitting next to each other cannot be based solely on the number of matching answers. The inference must take into account the number of mismatches and the number of incorrect matches also. (4) Therefore, the formula for filtering out the suspects for PMT--2011 was first modified by assigning weight of three to the number of incorrect matching answers. But, with this modification the filtered list contained candidates, who had performed badly as the number of incorrect answers was very large for them. The difference between the: number of incorrect matches and mismatches indicates the likelihood of answering in collusion or copying the answers. Therefore, the number of matching answers has been adjusted for this factor to arrive at a better indicator. This indicator has been called Unfair Means Score. This indicator can also be seen as a weighted score of matching answers in which the weight of one has been assigned to number of correct matches, weight of two to number of incorrect matches and weight of minus one to number of mismatches. This indicator has been called Unfair Means Score. This indicator can also be seen as a weighted score of matching answers in which the weight of one has been assigned to number of correct matches, weight of two to number of incorrect matches and weight of minus one to number of mismatches. The list of suspects based on this formula was then examined by the Enquiry Committee constituted for this purpose. Each candidate's case was individually examined keeping in mind the number of incorrect matches, mismatches and correct matches. (5) A relatively high cut-off value has been chosen for filtering out the list of suspects. This cut-off value two times the Average of number of matching answers. Ideally, the cut-off value should have been Average plus 3 times Standard Deviation as hardly 0.3% measurements are expected to exceed this value in case of Normal Distribution. Because of the Higher cut-off value, it was easy to finally identify the candidates who had indulged in unfair means in answering questions." 59. The formula has been applied in Pre Medical Tests of 2008 to 2011 in a reasonable and fair manner as the candidates have been subjected to process of filtration at various stages, which is evident from the following charts:-- 60. It is well-settled in law that the academic issues must be left to be decided by the Expert Body, which deserves great respect. The Court cannot act as Appellate Authority in such matters. When two views are possible and if the Expert Body has taken a possible view the same deserves acceptance. It is equally settled legal proposition that an opinion of expert body deserves higher degree of acceptance. [See: Ganpat Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput Vs. Gulbarga University, (2014) 3 SCC 767 ]. Notably, in the instant case, no effort was made to substantiate that the formula evolved by the Board is impermissible. Further, the formula is not the only means to identity the candidates who had indulged in the use of unfair means. The aforesaid enquiry has been made on the basis of other circumstances noted in the preceding paragraphs year-wise. Therefore, the formula is not the only factor to ascertain whether a candidate had indulged in use of unfair means. Further, the formula is not the only means to identity the candidates who had indulged in the use of unfair means. The aforesaid enquiry has been made on the basis of other circumstances noted in the preceding paragraphs year-wise. Therefore, the formula is not the only factor to ascertain whether a candidate had indulged in use of unfair means. In view of the facts stated supra, we are unable to hold that there is no logical basis in respect of the formula evolved by the Board for ascertaining the unfair means score. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the formula evolved by the Board is either arbitrary or irrational or by applying the formula it is not possible to ascertain whether the candidate has indulged in use of unfair means in the examination. It could also not be pointed out on behalf of the petitioners that formula evolved by the Board cannot be applied at all to detect the cases of the candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means. The extracts, referred to from websites, namely, www.purplemath.com and en.wikipedia.org on behalf of the petitioners, are of no assistance to the petitioners as on the basis of the aforesaid documents no inference can be drawn that the formula evolved by the Board cannot be applied at all for ascertaining the cases of the candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to appoint any other Expert Committee or to permit the petitioners to keep the experts present before us. We may reiterate that in the opinion of the experts relied on behalf of the petitioners, the experts have not stated the formula applied by the Board is unworkable or by applying the formula it is not possible to ascertain whether a candidate had indulged in use of unfair means in the examination. The Expert Body of the Board has taken plausible view and has applied the formula with great circumspection. The formula was adopted by the Board after the same was evolved by Expert Body and in such matters the Court cannot sit in judgment and interfere with the same, unless it is proved that it was an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power. [See: Subhash Chandra Dixit (supra)]. The formula was adopted by the Board after the same was evolved by Expert Body and in such matters the Court cannot sit in judgment and interfere with the same, unless it is proved that it was an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power. [See: Subhash Chandra Dixit (supra)]. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that there is no logical basis for evolving the formula is hereby repelled. 61. In Council of Civil Service Unions (CCSU) Vs. Minister for the Civil Service, (1984) 3 All ER 935, it has been held that any administrative action is subject to control by judicial review only on three grounds namely illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. The aforesaid principle has been accepted by the Supreme Court in several decisions. Reference in this connection be made to the decisions in the cases of Tata Cellular (supra) and Heinz India Private Limited and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2012) 5 SCC 443 . In the case of S.R. Tewari Vs. Union of India and another, (2013) 6 SCC 602 , it has been held that the scope of judicial review is limited to the decision making process and not against the decision itself, and in such a situation the Court cannot arrive at on its own independent finding. In Air India Ltd. Vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 617 , it has been held that Court must act with great caution and should exercise power of the judicial review only in furtherance of public interest, and not merely on making out of a legal point. 62. In the background of aforesaid well-settled legal principles, we may examine whether the action of the Board in cancelling the results of the candidates is amenable to judicial review in the facts of the case. Undoubtedly, it is the responsibility of the Board to ensure that free and fair entrance examination is held for admission to professional courses. The Board on receipt of information by the Special Tasks Force has constituted the Expert Committee, which after due diligence, submitted its report. In the report, the Expert Committee has opined that there is sufficient material on record to indicate that candidates have indulged in use of mass scale unfair means in an organised manner. The Board on receipt of information by the Special Tasks Force has constituted the Expert Committee, which after due diligence, submitted its report. In the report, the Expert Committee has opined that there is sufficient material on record to indicate that candidates have indulged in use of mass scale unfair means in an organised manner. The reports of the Expert Committee have duly been considered by the Competent Authority of the Board and thereafter, the orders of cancellation of results of the candidates, who had indulged in unfair means have been passed. Thus, the decision making process in the instant cases cannot be said to be illegal, irrational or suffering from any procedural impropriety. 63. So far as the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the action against the petitioners was taken in hot haste is concerned, it is necessary to notice few relevant facts before answering the same, which are as under:-- "(1) Computer Expert Committee was constituted on 30-8-2013 to check allotment of roll numbers in PMT 2013. (2) On 27-9-2013, Expert Committee found mismatch in 876 candidates. (3) On 9-10-2013, order of cancellation of 345 candidates was issued. (4) On 23-10-2013, STF wrote a letter to Vyapam informing that there has been tampering of roll numbers in 2012. (5) On 24-10-2013, Vyapam wrote a letter to STF stating that there is mismatch of roll numbers of about 700 candidates and requesting the STF to investigate the matter. (6) On 6-12-2013, order passed to cancel eligibility of 70 candidates. (7) On 31-12-2013, letter sent by AIG, STF requesting Vyapam to examine the PMT Exams 2009-2010 and 2011 in light of the scam done in PMT 2012 and PMT 2013. (8) On 1-2-2014, order passed to blacklist 6 centres and Invigilators and Observers have been restricted from allotment of duties in examinations. (9) On 11-4-2014, order passed by Hon'ble High Court in the case of W.P. No. 20342/14, Pratibha Singh Vs. State. (10) On 24-4-2014, order passed by Vyapam cancelling examination of 272 candidates in PMT 2012. (11) On 26-4-2014, order passed by Vyapam constituting Internal Expert Committee to examine roll number tampering in PMT 2009, PMT 2010 and PMT 2011. (12) On 3-5-2014, the Internal Committee examined possibility of roll number tampering in PMT 2011. (13) On 3-5-2014, order passed by Vyapam further cancelling examination of 42 candidates of PMT 2012. (11) On 26-4-2014, order passed by Vyapam constituting Internal Expert Committee to examine roll number tampering in PMT 2009, PMT 2010 and PMT 2011. (12) On 3-5-2014, the Internal Committee examined possibility of roll number tampering in PMT 2011. (13) On 3-5-2014, order passed by Vyapam further cancelling examination of 42 candidates of PMT 2012. (14) On 3-5-2014, order passed by Vyapam cancelling examination of 98 candidates in PMT 2011, therefore, from 26-4-2014 to 3-5-2014 the exercise was done. (15) Internal Committee of Vyapam examined the case of roll number tampering in 2010 from 26-4-2014 and recommended cancellation of examination of 90 candidates. (16) On 6-5-2014, order passed by Vyapam cancelling examination of 90 candidates in PMT 2010 after examining the matter from 26-4-2014 till 6-5-2014. (17) On 7-5-2014, the Internal Committee examined the documents in relation to PMT 2009 and recommended cancellation of 85 candidates. (18) On 8-5-2014, order passed by Vyapam cancelling examination of 85 candidates in PMT 2009 after the exercise was done from 7-5-2014. (19) On 15-5-2014, order passed by Vyapam to create an Internal Committee to examine the case of those students, who appeared in PMT 2008 in pairs. (20) On 16-5-2014, Committee examined PMT 2008 and recommended cancellation of 42 candidates. (21) On 19-5-2014, order passed by Vyapam cancelling examination of 42 candidates in PMT 2008 after exercise was done from 15-5-2014." Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid facts, it is crystal clear that the contention of the petitioners that action for cancellation of results has been taken in hot haste, cannot be accepted. 64. So far as the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that action for cancellation of results taken against the candidates selectively is concerned, the same deserves only to be stated to be rejected, in view of the undertaking given by learned Counsel for the respondents that Board is reexamining the possibility of use of unfair means in relation to the candidates, who have taken admission in the college, but have been left out and action would be taken against such candidates. For yet another reason, the aforesaid submission does not deserve acceptance as even if action has not been taken against some of the candidates inadvertently, the same does not confer the right on the petitioners, who have been found guilty of using unfair means during Pre Medical Tests. For yet another reason, the aforesaid submission does not deserve acceptance as even if action has not been taken against some of the candidates inadvertently, the same does not confer the right on the petitioners, who have been found guilty of using unfair means during Pre Medical Tests. It is trite law that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality. [See: State of U.P. and others Vs. Rajkumar Sharma and others, (2006) 3 SCC 330 ]: 65. Now, we may deal case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 7619/2014 (Puneet Patel Vs. State of M.P. and others). From perusal of page 43 of the reply, it is evident that at S. No. 99, one Mohammad Ashfaq of Indore has been shown to be the scorer and Raksha Maladhari of Dhar has been shown to be the beneficiary, who has filed Writ Petition No. 8069/2014. From perusal of S. Nos. 25 and 26, at page No. 52 of the return, the following position emerges:-- 66. It is pertinent to mention here that roll numbers of Rajesh Yadav, Puneet Patel, Mohammad Ashfaq, Raksha Maladhari are 433993, 433994, 433995, and 433996, respectively. The aforesaid candidates were sitting behind each other. Mohammad Ashfaq has acted as scorer for Puneet Patel as well as Raksha Maladhari. The aforesaid aspect has been taken into account in order dated 7-5-2014. It is clearly stated that certain candidates whose roll numbers have been mentioned, assisted in copying to those candidates, who were sitting in front of and behind them. The roll number of petitioner in W.P. No. 7619/2014 has also been mentioned in the order dated 7-5-2014. In W.P. No. 10414/2014, which has been filed by one Gunjeet Nayak, the roll numbers of the candidates who were sitting in front of and behind him, are as follows:-- It is pertinent to mention that Anshuman Singh has been shown as Scorer for Gunjeet Nayak and Meena Sihore, who had filed Writ Petitions No. 10414/2014 and 4711/2014. It is relevant to mention here that Anshuman Singh did not take admission in the MBBS Course. The fact that the candidate sitting as scorer has helped the candidates sitting in front of him as well as the candidates sitting behind him in copying, has specifically been taken into account in the order dated 7-5-2014. It is relevant to mention here that Anshuman Singh did not take admission in the MBBS Course. The fact that the candidate sitting as scorer has helped the candidates sitting in front of him as well as the candidates sitting behind him in copying, has specifically been taken into account in the order dated 7-5-2014. In the said order, the roll number of the petitioner in W.P. No. 10414/2014 has also been mentioned. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was unable to show from the aforesaid order, which has been passed after due consideration of the report, that at one place he has been treated as beneficiary and at another place he has been treated as scorer. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that somewhere he has been treated as scorer and some where as beneficiary, cannot be accepted. 67. So far as Writ Petition No. 7295/2014 is concerned, the same relates to Pre Medical Test, 2013 in which the result of the petitioner has been cancelled vide order dated 27-3-2014. The controversy involved in the aforesaid writ petition is covered by the decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Pratibha Singh (supra). Therefore, for the reasons assigned by Division Bench of this Court in Pratibha Singh (supra), and the stand taken by the Board in its return, the inevitable conclusion is that the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition had indulged in use of unfair means and, therefore, her result has rightly been cancelled. 68. While referring to the documents from the compilation as well as return, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that if the right match answers and wrong match answers are added, their score crosses 200 marks, which is not possible and, therefore, the formula is erroneous and illogical. The aforesaid submission is noted only to be rejected, as on the basis of the formula, the Board has only ascertained the volume of unfair means score and not the actual marks. 69. Now, we may deal with the contention of the petitioners that there was no material to order inquiry in respect of Pre Medical Tests, 2009 to 2011 and for constitution of the Committee. 69. Now, we may deal with the contention of the petitioners that there was no material to order inquiry in respect of Pre Medical Tests, 2009 to 2011 and for constitution of the Committee. If the impugned orders are read carefully, it is evident that the Special Task Force who was investigating the criminal cases from time to time apprised the Board with regard to irregularities committed in previous Pre Medical Tests on the basis of information furnished by the Special Task Force, the Board constituted the Committee of the experts and after consideration of the report by the Expert Committee, the impugned orders have been issued, therefore, the contention of the petitioners that there was no material to order enquiry does not deserve acceptance. Similarly, the contention that there is no material on record to arrive at the conclusion that candidates were involved in use of unfair means needs only to be rejected as we have already indicated the material available on record against the candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means in preceding paragraphs. Even otherwise, it is not open for this Court to go into the sufficiency of material and the instant cases are not the cases where no subjective satisfaction has been recorded by the authority with regard to use of unfair means or that it is recorded without there being any material on record. 70. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that since formula to identify the candidates was evolved by the Board after examination was held, the same amounts to changing the rules of the game, is misconceived. The candidates had indulged in mass copying in an organised manner by tampering their roll numbers in collusion with officials of the Board and racketeers. The candidates had secured admissions in MBBS Course by playing fraud. Therefore, such candidates cannot be permitted to retain an advantage obtained by fraud and mere delay in detection of fraud would not create any equities in favour of such candidates. [See: Ram Preeti Yadav (supra)]. 71. We have already held that the candidates had indulged in mass copying in Pre Medical Tests, 2008 to 2012, therefore, for the reasons assigned by Division Bench in Paras. 91 to 106 of the decision in the case of Pratibha Singh (supra), the principles of natural justice would have no application in the peculiar fact situation of these cases. 71. We have already held that the candidates had indulged in mass copying in Pre Medical Tests, 2008 to 2012, therefore, for the reasons assigned by Division Bench in Paras. 91 to 106 of the decision in the case of Pratibha Singh (supra), the principles of natural justice would have no application in the peculiar fact situation of these cases. In order to examine the contention of the petitioners, who had appeared in Pre Medical Test, 2010 that their cases do not fall within the purview of Rule 3.8 of Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Under Graduate Entrance Examination Rules, 2010, it is necessary to reproduce the aforesaid rule, which reads as under:-- "Rule 3.8. UNFAIR MEANS (UFM): If any candidate is found using unfair means during the examination, which includes, referring to a book/note book/loose sheets, talking, giving assistance or seeking/receiving help from any source, indulging in any malpractice or misbehaviour in any manner in the test hall, harassing or doing harm to other candidates or invigilation or supervisory staff or if any action of the candidate is interpreted by the Observer/Centre Superintendent/Invigilator as amounting to adopting unfair means, a case will be registered under unfair means and shall be legally dealt with accordingly. The answer sheet of the candidate booked under UFM shall not be valued and his/her candidature shall be cancelled. Additionally, any case of use of unfair means on the part of the candidate may be handed over to the police. Criminal proceedings shall be initiated against such candidates." Thus, it is evident that definition of "unfair means" is inclusive and provides that additionally in any case of use of unfair means, enumerated in the rule, which would include the case of "mass copying" as well, under the aforesaid rule and action can be taken against the petitioners. Besides that, in any case, if the Board has power to conduct the examination, it has implicit power to cancel the results of the candidates as well. It has been held by the Division Bench in the case of Pratibha Singh (supra), that Board alone has the authority to take action against the candidates for cancellation of results. Therefore, the aforesaid contention cannot be accepted. 72. Now, we may deal with the submission made in the rejoinder reply by way of written submissions in W.P. Nos. It has been held by the Division Bench in the case of Pratibha Singh (supra), that Board alone has the authority to take action against the candidates for cancellation of results. Therefore, the aforesaid contention cannot be accepted. 72. Now, we may deal with the submission made in the rejoinder reply by way of written submissions in W.P. Nos. 7576/2014 and 7121/2014, that in case this Court does not agree to exercise power of judicial review in favour of the petitioners, this Court may permit the petitioners to resort to the remedy of civil suit. Notably, the petitioners elected the remedy of writ jurisdiction. Not only that, they chose to argue the matter in extenso on all aspects including on the issue of scope of judicial review and also the duty of the Court to interfere with the impugned action of the authorities on the ground that the same was irrational, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and untenable. It was also argued with vehemence that there was no basis for the formula evolved by the Board, for identifying the erring candidates. Rather, the approach of the authorities was illogical and unscientific. Each of these arguments has been addressed and answered by us hitherto. After having undertaken that exercise, the question of granting liberty to the petitioners to now approach the Civil Court by way of a civil suit would be nothing short of encouraging multiplicity of proceedings. No tangible contention, which has been left out from consideration in this judgment, and needs to be adjudicated by way of a civil suit in the context of challenge to the impugned action, has been brought to our notice. Moreover, as the alternative relief for permission to resort to remedy of civil suit being after though and taken at a belated stage after exhausting the marathon arguments by the Counsel for the concerned petitioners by engaging the Court for couple of days; coupled with the fact that the petitioners have not pointed out any tangible ground or plea on which the petitioners should be permitted to resort to remedy of civil suit after the decision of this Court on the points dealt with in this judgment (which obviously will be binding on the Civil Court), the question of acceding to the request under consideration does not arise. Suffice it to observe that the alternative plea taken by the petitioners is an argument of desperation and without any legal basis. As a result, the same will have to be negatived. In view of the preceding analysis, we do not find any merit in the writ petitions. The same fail and are hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Similarly, all the Interlocutory Applications in the respective writ petitions are also disposed of.