Rajes Kumar,J. Heard Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate, alongwith Sri Santosh Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel for the respondent-University. 2. The petitioner appeared in IVth Semester of M.A. ( Hindi Examination), 2012. It is the case of the respondents that while the petitioner was appearing in 17th paper of M.A. ( Hindi) of IVth Semester Examination 2012 on 10.5.2013, two hand-written pages ( paper chits) were found from the possession of the petitioner. UFM form was got signed from the petitioner by the Head Invigilator and the answer book of the petitioner alongwith unauthorised material was signed by the Flying Squad. It appears that a second copy has been given to the petitioner. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20th May, 2013, stating therein that on 10th May, 2013, when you were appearing in 17th paper of M.A. ( Hindi) of IVth Semester Examination 2012, while you were found using unauthorised material/intending to use such material caught by the Invigilator with two hand written pages in your possession. The petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice on 30th May, 2013 wherein it was stated that on 10th May, 2013, when she was appearing in the examination of 17th paper of M.A. ( Hindi) of IVth Semester Examination 2012, a paper which was lying, has been lifted by her. The Invigilator has told her that said paper belongs to her and on being confused and pressurised, she filled UFM Form and the second copy has been provided to her. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 26th July, 2013 has been passed whereby the result of the petitioner of M.A. IV Semester Second Examination, 2012-13 has been cancelled and the petitioner has been debarred from the corresponding ( and any other ) Examination of 2013-14 under Clause 1 of University Ordinance. The impugned order is referred hereinbelow:- Under Clause 1.5 ( a), ( b) and ( c) of University ORDINANCE ON THE USE OF UNFAIRMEANS AND CAUSING DISTURBANCES IN THE EXAMINATION, the UFM committee made the following observations. The impugned order is referred hereinbelow:- Under Clause 1.5 ( a), ( b) and ( c) of University ORDINANCE ON THE USE OF UNFAIRMEANS AND CAUSING DISTURBANCES IN THE EXAMINATION, the UFM committee made the following observations. ( i)Report of the invigilator shows that the candidate was caught by Invigilator with 02 hand written pages ( paper chits) from the possession of candidate, UFM form is signed by Head Invigilator and the answer book of the candidate and the caught unauthorized material is signed by the member of Flying Squad. The report was submitted to Controller of Examination during the Examination. This is defined as "A candidate found in possession of unauthorized material as per clause 1.2( D) of above referred ORDINANCE. ( ii) As per clause 1.3 of above referred ORDINANCE, notice was served by the University to the candidate vide letter No. M-IV Sem. S.E.-/01 Dated 20.05.2013. The student has submitted reply to the notice on 30.05.2013. The candidate has denied the charge of UFM and states "I lifted the papers ( Unauthorized material) which was lying on the ground near me and I was caught by invigilator with this unauthorized material, I am ignorant about this unauthorized material". But in UFM form candidate had accepted partial use of chit.. ( iii) As per Examiner's report, the unauthorized material is related to the subject matter of the examination paper but the candidate has not used it. UFM candidate observed that Answer of question no. 1 Khand 'ka" on page 1 of Answer Book is word by word transcribed from the caught unauthorized material ( hand written chit). Portion is marked by red Pen. Considering the above mentioned observations and punishment prescribed in the clause 1.6 B ( i) of above referred ORDINANCE for transcribing any part or whole of the unauthorized material of which she was found in possession the committee resolves. Cancellation of the result of the candidate, in the M.A. IV Sem. Second Examination 2012-13 and Debarment from the corresponding ( and any other) Examination of 2013-14. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the show cause notice it has only been stated that two hand written papers were found in the possession of the petitioner and they have been used/intended to be used by the petitioner. In the show cause, it has not been stated that the question no. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the show cause notice it has only been stated that two hand written papers were found in the possession of the petitioner and they have been used/intended to be used by the petitioner. In the show cause, it has not been stated that the question no. 1 of Khand 'Ka' on page 1 of the answer book has been transcribed from the unauthorised material ( handwritten chit/portion of the chit). Further, it is not clear from the show cause that from which place two hand written papers were found and, therefore, the observation made in this regard, in the impugned order is unjustified inasmuch as the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, the order impugned is vitiated and is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner in the reply herself admitted that the paper, which was lying, has been lifted by her and in the UFM Form also it has been admitted that the papers were found from her possession. In the show cause notice, it has been categorically stated that the unauthorised material has been found from the possession of the petitioner, which has been used by the petitioner. He further submitted that the finding recorded in the impugned order that the answer of Question no.1 of Khand 'Ka' at page 1 of the answer book has been word by word transcribed from the caught unauthorised material, has not been disputed in any of the paragraphs of the writ petition. The impugned order has been passed after giving fullest opportunity to the petitioner and is based on the materials on record. Therefore, no interference is called for. 5. I have considered rival submissions and also perused the materials on record. 6. Relevant part of Ordinance relating to unfair means reads as under: Ordinances on the use of unfair means and of causing disturbances in examination 1. Unfair means 1.1 Candidates found using or attempting aiding, abetting or instigating to use unfair means at the examinations of University of Allahabad shall be punished. 1.2. 6. Relevant part of Ordinance relating to unfair means reads as under: Ordinances on the use of unfair means and of causing disturbances in examination 1. Unfair means 1.1 Candidates found using or attempting aiding, abetting or instigating to use unfair means at the examinations of University of Allahabad shall be punished. 1.2. Definitions ( A) Unfair means -- A candidate shall be deemed to have used "unfair means" if the candidate is in possession of unauthorised material or if he has transcribed any part or the whole of the unauthorised material or if he intimidates or threatens or manhandles or uses violence against any invigilator or person on duty in the examination or if he leaves the examination hall without surrendering his examination script to an invigilator or if he is found communicating with other examinees or any one else inside or outside the examination hall. ( B) possession of unauthorised material --"possession of unauthorised material" by a candidate shall mean having any unauthorised material on his person or desk or chair or table or at any place within reach in the examination hall and its environs or having such material on him in the urinal/ toilet or in the passage thereto or therefrom at any time from commencement of the examination till its end. ( C) Unauthorised material :-- "Unauthorised material" shall mean any material whatsoever, related to the subject of the examination, printed, typed, written or otherwise paper, cloth; wood or other material, in any language or in any form of a chart, diagram, map or drawing. ( D) A candidate found in possession:--"A candidate found in possession shall mean a candidate reported in writing as having been found in possession of unauthorised material the Invigilator or Head Invigilator or by a teacher or official authorised in this behalf even if the unauthorised material taken away by the candidate or by any other person acting on his behalf provided that such report is submitted to the Registrar, Allahabad University, or an officer deputed for this purpose on his behalf within three hours of the end of the examination concerned after authentication by the Head Invigilator concerned ( along with the unauthorised material found, if available as evidence. ( E) Material related to the subject of the examination:-- "Material related to the subject of the examination" shall, if the material is produced as evidence, mean any material certified as related to the subject of the examination by the teacher of the subject. If the material is not produced as evidence for any of the reasons referred to in ( D) above, the presumption shall be that the material did relate to the subject of the examination. 1.3 A candidate found using unfair means in an examination shall be served with a notice therefore in the examination hall and, if he refuses to accept or avoids or escapes personal receipt of such notice, such notice shall be sent to him by Registered Post within seven days of the incident. The candidate shall be required to submit his reply to the notice within 10 days of the issue of such notice. If no reply is received within this period, it would be presumed that the candidate has nothing to state in his defence. 1.4 Punishment prescribed in these Ordinances ( No. 1.1 to 1.6) shall be awarded by a Committee of not less than five teachers appointed by the Examinations Committee or by the Vice-Chancellor acting on behalf of the former. The quorum of this Committee shall be three. 1.5 The Committee referred to in Ordinance 1.4 above shall consider:-- ( a) the report, if any, about the candidate having been found in possession of unauthorised material; ( b) the reply of the candidate, if any, to the notice; ( c) the report of the examiner concerned, if any, regarding the transcription or non/ transcription of the unauthorised material of which the candidate was found in possession; ( d) any other report of intimidation, threat, manhandling or violence received in connection with the conduct of the examination by any person on duty of the University, and ( e) any other material. 1.6 The Committee referred to in Ordinance 1.4 shall award the following punishment after placing on record that it has examined all the documents referred to in Ordinance 1.5 and that it has satisfied itself regarding the facts of the matter; A( i) For possession of unauthorised material, or ( ii) For leaving the examination hall without surrendering the examination script to an Invigilator, or ( iii) For communicating with other examinees or any one else inside or outside the examination hall. Cancellation of the results of the candidate in the examination in question. B( i) For transcribing any part or the whole of the unauthorised material of which he was found in possession, or ( ii) For intimidating or threatening any invigilator or person on duty in the examination. Cancellation of the results of the candidate in the examination in question and debarment from the corresponding ( and any other) subsequent examinations of the next academic session. C. For manhandling or using violence against any invigilator or person on duty in the examination; Such cases, after scrutiny by the Committee referred to in Ordinance 1.4, shall be forwarded to the proctor for necessary action. 7. C. For manhandling or using violence against any invigilator or person on duty in the examination; Such cases, after scrutiny by the Committee referred to in Ordinance 1.4, shall be forwarded to the proctor for necessary action. 7. Show cause notice, dated 20th May, 2013 is being reproduced below: bykgkckn fo'ofo|ky; jftLVMZ i= lhusV gkml bykgkckn la[;k% v0lk0 @ M-IV SEM.SE/01 fnukad 20-5-2013 lsok esa] vferk flag D/o Jh d`".kjke flag 95&97 iwjk nysy] vYykiqj bykgkckn vuqdzekad 1120 eSa izks0 ,p-,l- mik/;k; ijh{kk fu;a=d vkSj ijh{kk v/kh{kd bykgkckn fo'ofo|ky;] bykgkckn] bl lwpuk&i= }kjk vkidks lwfpr djrk gWwA 1- ;g dh fnukad 10-5-2013 dks tc vki fgUnh fo"k; ds 17okW iz'u i= esa ,e-,- fgUnh prqFkZ lsesLVj f}rh; ijh{kk o"kZ 2013 dh ijh{kk ns jgs Fks] rc vki mDr ijh{kk esa leqfpr lk/ku dk iz;ksx djrs gq;s@iz;Ru djrs gq;s ik;s x;sA vr% fod`r lkexzh tks vkids ikl feyh mlds lUnHkZ esa vkjksi dk fooj.k uhps fn;k x;k gSA 2- ;g fd] vkidh bl o"kZ dh ijh{kk fujLr dh tk ldrh gS rFkk vkidks fo'ofo|ky; dh fdlh Hkh vkxkeh ijh{kk ls vuqorhZ o"kksZa ds fy;s fu;ekuqlkj oafpr fd;k tk ldrk gSA 3- ;g fd] vki ;g crk;s fd vkids fo:) mijksDr vko';d dk;Zokgh D;ksa u dh tk;s vkidk Li"Vhdj.k] ;fn dksbZ gS rks mls fnukad 30-5-2013 rd izLrqr dj nsaA vU;Fkk ;g le>k tk;sxk fd bl fo"k; esa vkidks dqN ugh dguk gSA vkSj ,d i{kh; dk;Zokgh vkids fo:) fcuk fdlh vU; lwpuk ds dh tk;sxhA g0 viBuh; ijh{kk fu;a=d vkSj ijh{kk v/kh{kd 8. The reply of the petitioner, dated 30th May, 2013 is also being reproduced below: lsok esa] ijh{kk fu;a=d] b-fo-fo- bykgkcknA egksn;] vkids i=kad la- v0lk0@ M-IV SEM.SE/01 fnukad 20-5-13 ds lUnHkZ esa eq>s vki dks voxr djkuk gS fd eSa fgUnh fo"k; esa prqFkZ lSesLVj ds 17 okW isij dk vad lq/kkj dh ijh{kk fgUnh foHkkx esa fnukad 10-5-13 dks ns jgh Fkh dkxt fxjk ns[kk ftKklko'k mBk fy;k d{k fujh{kd Hkzeo'k eq>ls dgk ;g dkxt rqEgkjk gS] eSa grizHk gks xbZ tc fd mDr dkxt ds fo"k; esa eq>s dqN Hkh irk ugh Fkk ncko ,oa Hkze ds o'khHkwr grizHk fLFkfr esa eq>ls ;w0,Q0,e0 dk QkeZ Hkjok;k x;k rFkk nqljh dkih miyC/k djk nh xbZ cgqr gh m}sfyr vfLFkj ,oa vijk/k cks/k xzflr eu ls ijh{kk fn;kA vr% djc) fuosnu gS fd esjs Hkfo"; ,oa dSfj;j dks n`f"Vxr djrs gq, lgkuqHkwfr ,oa n;kiw.kZrk ds lkFk vad lq/kkj ijh{kk dk ewY;kadu dk ijh{kkQy ?kksf"kr djus dh d`ik djsaA vFkok fu;eksa ds vkyksd esa vad lq/kkj ijh{kk dks fujLr djrs gq, iwoZ vad rkfydk iznku djus dh d`ik djsaA ftlls esjk Hkfo"; ,oa dSfj;j cp ldsA eSa vki ds bl d:.kke; midkj ds fy, vkthou _.kh vkSj vkHkkjh jgwWxhA vkidh vkKkdkjh vferk flag 9. The impugned order has already been referred hereinabove. 10. From perusal of the reply submitted by the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner in the reply herself has admitted that handwritten papers, which were lying, have been lifted by her. It is not in dispute that two hand written papers were found from the possession of the petitioner by the Head Invigilator. In the show cause notice, it has been categorically stated that the said papers were found used by the petitioner. This allegation has not been disputed in the reply filed by the petitioner. In the impugned order it has been categorically stated that the answer of Question NO. 1 of Khand 'Ka' on page 1 of Answer Book has been word by word transcribed from the caught unauthorised material ( handwritten chit), such finding has not been disputed by the petitioner in the writ petition. In the present case, petitioner has been caught red handed with unauthorized material, which was related to subject and was found used such material. In the present case, petitioner has been caught red handed with unauthorized material, which was related to subject and was found used such material. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order has been passed after giving fullest opportunity to the petitioner and the findings are based on the material on record. On the facts and circumstances, the decision taken by the respondents cannot be said to be unjustified. The present case falls within the ambit of Clause 1.2 of the Ordinance of the University and after giving the notice, punishment has been awarded to the petitioner under Clause 1.6 ( b) ( i) of the Ordinance, which cannot be said to unjustified. 11 In the case of Allahabad University Teachers' Association and others v. The Chancellor, Allahabad University, Lucknow and others, reported in AIR 1982, Allahabad 343, while deciding the controversy with regard to punishment of cancellation of result, on using unfair means in the examination, the Division Bench of this Court held as follows: "16. Possession of unauthorised material is not merely having it on his person. Such possession can also be inferred if it is on the candidate's desk, chair or table or at any place within his reach in the examination hall. 17. The two chits were found under the table. To the query "were these recovered from your desk or chair?" the fourth respondent answered "yes", from the side ( gka cxy ls) Reading the answer along with the question, it is clear that the fourth respondent admitted that the chits were recovered from the side of his desk. According to the invigilator's report they were found from under the table. It is thus clear that the chits were recovered from under the fourth respondent's desk ( table). They were hence not found 'on' his desk, chair or table, but 'under' his desk/ table. Such a place, namely, under his desk is obviously within reach of the candidate. Therefore it cannot be said that the examination committee committed any error in holding the fourth respondent guilty of possession of unauthorised material. In his order, the Chancellor has mentioned the petitioner's submission that the chits were not recovered from him but he has not given any finding that the fourth respondent was not in possession of unauthorised material as defined in the Ordinances. In his order, the Chancellor has mentioned the petitioner's submission that the chits were not recovered from him but he has not given any finding that the fourth respondent was not in possession of unauthorised material as defined in the Ordinances. In our opinion, the examination committee could validly reach the conclusion that the candidate was in possession of unauthorised material. 18. The Chancellor has observed that the University authorities have not made efforts to find out if the chits were in the handwriting of the candidate. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the question whether the chits were in the handwriting of the candidate was irrelevant. Even if it was not in the handwriting of the candidate, yet it will be deemed to be 'unauthorised material' Ordinance 1.2 ( C) defines 'unauthorised material' as under:-- "( C) Unauthorised material: "Unauthorised material" shall mean any material whatsoever, related to the subject of the examination, printed, type-written or otherwise, on paper, cloth, wood or other material, in any language or in the form of a chart, diagram, map or drawing." Under the definition, even a printed or type-written material is within the ambit of the term "unauthorised material" the only condition being that the material should relate to the subject of the examination. On the eventful day, the subject was 'Industrial and Labour Law.' The head examiner's report shows that the chits could have been used in reply to questions 5 and 10. Hence it was clear that the material, namely, the chits related to the subject of the examination. In view of this undisputable position, it could not but be hold that the chits were unauthorised material The fact whether they were or were not in the handwriting of the candidate, was neither material nor relevant." 12. The reasonings and the findings of the Division Bench, referred to hereinabove, squarely apply in the present case. 13. The court finds that the practise of using unfair means in the examination has become prevailing practise in the examination, right from High School level to the higher level examinations. It is a matter of grave concern, which requires to be dealt with seriously and appropriate immediate remedial measures are required to be taken by the concerned authority by taking a serious note of it. It is a matter of grave concern, which requires to be dealt with seriously and appropriate immediate remedial measures are required to be taken by the concerned authority by taking a serious note of it. It is informed that in all types of examination, particularly, High School, Intermediate and the University, certain agencies are working on the contractual basis to provide unathorised materials or which take contracts to get the examinees passed by managing unfair means and are making huge money out of it. There is an urgent need to take strict and stringent measures to curb the practise of using unfair means. The authorities concerned should evolve a fool-proof and workable mechanism to curb/stop the menace of using unfair means in the examination in order to maintain purity and impartiality of the examination so that the standard of our education system be taken on higher level which may benefit our younger generation and the generations to come. If the present system of using unfair means by the agencies involved in adopting the unfair means is permitted to continue, it may destroy our whole education system inasmuch as the students having adopting unfair means may be placed in advantageous position than the meritorious students, who are doing hard labour day and night, as a result of which the meritorious students may not be able to get which is due to them. 14. It is the duty of the Government/University/Authorities, conducting the examination at various levels, to take appropriate steps in this regard. 15. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court declines to interfere in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, fails and is dismissed. 16. No order as to cost.