JUDGMENT : B.R. SARANGI, J. Against the cancellation of result of Diploma in Elementary Education-2014 (2nd year) (DEP Course) on the ground of Mal Practice, the petitioners have filed these petitions. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioners while continuing as Sikhya Sahayaks, as such as teachers in the Primary Schools under Chakapada, Tikabali, Raikia Block in the District of Kandhamal, for obtaining Diploma in Elementary Education in 2014(2nd year)(DEP Course) completed the said course through distance education from DIET, Tikabali (Govt. High School, Tikabali). Thereafter, on getting Admit Card they appeared at the said examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack in Govt. High School, Baliguda as per the schedule given by the opposite parties-Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack. The result of the said examination though was declared on 22.02.2015, surprisingly the petitioners' results were not declared. The petitioners downloaded the result and came to know that as against different papers of different subjects nothing has been mentioned and it has been shown against their result as "M. P. (Mal Practice)". Consequently, their results have been cancelled on the ground of Mal Practice. The petitioners made a query about reasons for Mal Practice and they came to know that in course of appearing the said examination the squad comprising of two persons, visited the examination centre and checked all the candidates including petitioners but they could not be able to recover any incriminating materials. But unfortunately, from some other candidates they received some incriminating materials. Therefore, the results of the petitioners have not been declared. As indicated the reason of non-declaration is that they were involved in Mal Practice and accordingly, the results have been cancelled. 3. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously urged that the cancellation of result on the ground of Mal Practice is totally arbitrary, unreasonable, whimsical and outcome of non-application of mind and more particularly it is violative of principles of natural justice. It is urged that without following due procedure of law, cancellation of results of the petitioners cannot sustain and therefore, he seeks for quashing of the same and also seeks for direction for declaration of their results. It is urged that without following due procedure of law, cancellation of results of the petitioners cannot sustain and therefore, he seeks for quashing of the same and also seeks for direction for declaration of their results. To substantiate his case, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Governing Body of Evening College, Angul-Vs- State of Orissa and two others, 2010 (I) OLR 335 . 4. Mr. S.C. Panda, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 and 2 referring to counter affidavit states that the D.EL. Ed. (Diploma in Elementary Education)-2014, DEP (Distance Education Programme) (2nd year) examination was conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack form 17.11.2014 to 29.11.2014 in 69 examination centers. The petitioners were appearing at the said examination through Govt. High School, Baliguda. Accordingly, they were issued Admit Card for the said examination. The Admit Cards contain "Rules for the Guidance of the candidates". The squad party constituted by the Board visited the examination centre on 24.11.2q14 and the subject of the said day was P.C.-5. 124 number of candidates' were appearing at the center as per seat chart and the said candidates were made to seat in five rooms. The petitioners being in service candidates have undergone D.EL.Ed. (D.E.P) training in Distance mode. The squad members booked 45 numbers of candidates under mal practice on the said sitting dated 27.11.2014. They seized incriminating materials from 32 numbers of the candidates and the rest 13 numbers of candidate including the petitioners threw away the incriminating materials, which they had possessed with them on seeing the squad members entering the room. As per the rules for guidance of the candidates as mentioned in the Admit Cards, the candidates should not take anything other than the Admit Card, pen, pencil and Geometry box to the examination hall and there is a provision of gate checking at the examination centre. The candidates must not bring anything while entering the gate in their way to the examination hall. When 45 nos. of candidates have been booked out of 124 candidates, it is inferred that the examination has not been conducted properly in the said centre. The Squad members were two in numbers and they had to visit other centre as well. The candidates must not bring anything while entering the gate in their way to the examination hall. When 45 nos. of candidates have been booked out of 124 candidates, it is inferred that the examination has not been conducted properly in the said centre. The Squad members were two in numbers and they had to visit other centre as well. It is not possible on their part to check the candidates of all the five rooms simultaneously and while checking, they were also observing the activities of the candidates simultaneously. As per the reports of both the squad members and Centre Superintendent, 13 numbers of candidates including the petitioners threw away the incriminating materials which they possessed. Enquiry report was submitted on 31.03.2015 in Proforma-V. The Centre Superintendent also submitted a report on 27.11.2014. Therefore, the petitioners have been rightly booked under Malpractice as they have been involved in such offences. Therefore, the grounds taken that the action of the authority is an outcome of non-application of mind, is not justified. Further, there is availability of alternative remedy by preferring appeal and instead of availing the same, since the petitioners have approached this Court by filing this writ application, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 5. Considering such contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the D.EI.Ed. 2014 (2nd Year) (DEP Course examination was conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Cuttack form 17.11.2014 to 29.11.2014 in 69 examination Centres. The petitioners were appearing the examination through Govt. High School, Baliguda. On 27.11.2014, the squad party constituted by Board, visited the said examination Centre, in which 124 candidates were appearing the examination as per the seating chart and the candidates were made to sit in five rooms. As per the report of the squad which has been annexed as Annexure-A/2 Series, no incriminating materials have been seized from the petitioners. The endorsement given under the column indicating whether the candidates were in possession of incriminating materials, unequivocally it is stated "No". So far as the column indicating whether the candidate threw away incriminating materials arrival of squads it has been indicated "Yes", so far as the petitioners are concerned, The Headmaster of the School, who has been appointed as Centre Superintendent has given report that SI. NO.1 to 31 had been booked under malpractice but SI. So far as the column indicating whether the candidate threw away incriminating materials arrival of squads it has been indicated "Yes", so far as the petitioners are concerned, The Headmaster of the School, who has been appointed as Centre Superintendent has given report that SI. NO.1 to 31 had been booked under malpractice but SI. No. 32 to 45 had thrown the incriminating materials when the squad members entered into the rooms, and so they were also booked under malpractice. Under column 9 with regard to particulars of the incriminating materials recovered from the candidate (if the incriminating materials consist of writing on walls, desk, body of the candidates, so that it cannot be sent in original. The certified copies of such writings should be forwarded.) The incriminating material (s) should invariably bear the signature of the Centre Superintendent with Roll No., the endorsement is "threw away through window". Whereas as to Clause-10, the exact place or places from where the incriminating material(s) was/were recovered it is mentioned "on the table". In clause14 as to whether Admit Card seized and enclosed, if not why, the endorsement is "yes". If the incriminating materials as stated in clause 9 has been thrown away through window how they were recovered from the table and more so neither any Admit Card of the petitioners have been seized nor the same has been enclosed in the report. In column No. 19 which states whether the candidate has been expelled, the endorsement is "yes" but the fact remains non of the candidates has been expelled by the authority. 6. From the proceeding of the Examination Committee Meeting held on 04.04.2015 at 11 A.M., it appears that with regard to the agenda to ratify the action of the President regarding approval of malpractice cases booked in D.EI. Ed examination 2014 as per the report received from the members of the squad constituted for the purpose" under clause (B) resolution was passed ratifying the action of the President in approving the mal practice case of D.EI. Ed examination 2014 in case of 770 cases. Further the committee resolved that the candidates booked under malpractice shall loose one chance and will be allowed to appear the next D.EI. Ed examination to be held in the year 2015. Ed examination 2014 in case of 770 cases. Further the committee resolved that the candidates booked under malpractice shall loose one chance and will be allowed to appear the next D.EI. Ed examination to be held in the year 2015. The same shall be notified in the local dailies and if the candidates want to appeal the same shall be heard by the committee to be constituted by the Board. While accepting the above reports, it has not been elicited that there has been compliance of natural justice, so far as the petitioners are concernedon the allegation of involvement in mal practice. In addition to that it is admitted fact that no incriminating materials have been seized from these petitioners with their signatures on such materials and while booking them under "mal practice" none of the procedure has been followed and imposition of penalty debarring the petitioners to appear the D.EI.Ed examination for a period of one year is violative of principles of natural justice. The allegations made that the results of the petitioners were cancelled due to infringement of the rules is not in consonance with the compliance of principles of natural justice. Therefore on the basis of surmises and conjunctures, authority cannot utilize the materials which had not been put to the petitioners, thereby, the principles of natural justice have to be sacrosanctly followed in the case of cancellation of result on the ground of mal practice. In absence of any incriminating materials recovered from the petitioners, merely stating that the incriminating materials have been thrown away through window, it cannot be construed that the petitioners are involved in mal practice. In absence of any incriminating materials recovered from the petitioners, merely stating that the incriminating materials have been thrown away through window, it cannot be construed that the petitioners are involved in mal practice. In Governing Body of Evening College, Angul (supra) this Court taking into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court in U.O.I & others v. Jai Prakash Singh and another, AIR 2007 SC 1363 and in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala and others, AIR 1969 SC 198 and the judgments of this Court in Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack v. Gayatri Hota and Others, 2001 (I) OLR 398 ; Kumari Babita Jena and others v. Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa and others, 2007 (I) OLR 161 ; Prashanta Kumar Chakara v. Council of Higher Secondary Education Orissa, 1998 (II) OLR 451 held that the authorities cannot utilize materials which had not been put to the petitioner and that the principle of natural justice have to be sacrosanctly followed in the case of cancellation of result on the ground of mass mal practice. All these cases referred to above are cases of mass mal practice. But the present case stands in a better footing than that of the above cases referred to above, inasmuch as the Court had occasion to peruse the report of the Squad, Centre Superintendent' and the Examination Committee, which have been annexed to the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties and the reports of the Squad as well as the Centre Superintendent have made a parrot like statement that the incriminating materials have been thrown through the window, the same has not been recovered from the petitioners and more so the examination committee has taken action against the petitioners without compliance of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the decision taken by the examination committee, duly ratified by the President of the Soard cannot be sustained. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the law laid down by. Therefore, the decision taken by the examination committee, duly ratified by the President of the Soard cannot be sustained. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the law laid down by. this Court as well as the Apex Court, the decision for cancellation of the result of the petitioners is hereby quashed and the Soard of Secondary Education, Odisha, Cuttack is directed to declare the result of the petitioners by awarding marks as has been awarded by the valuers of the respective answer scripts and such results be published/declared within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order before the Controller of Examination of the SSE, Odisha, Cuttack by the petitioners and the mark sheet and certificates of the candidates shall be sent to the respective Schools within a period of three weeks thereafter and the respective schools shall hand over the same to the candidates. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.