JUDGMENT/ORDER Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. - The petitioner in this petition is aggrieved by the order at Annexure-D wherein the Under Secretary to Department of Medical Education has taken a decision to cancel the examinations conducted between 22.11.2022 to 25.11.2022 for the students studying in first and second year of Diploma Course in General Nursing and Midwifery. 2. In terms of Annexure-D the direction is also issued to the Special Officer of Nursing and Paramedical Science Education (Regulation) Authority to hold the exams afresh. The Annexure-D indicates that such a decision is taken in view of malpractices in the examination in certain centers where the examination was conducted. 3. Learned counsel Sri N.B.Diwanji appearing for the petitioner would contend that the decision taken in terms of Annexure-D is without authority of law and liable to be quashed. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that in the Writ Petition No.23742/2022 which is decided on 08.12.2022, the decision to cancel the examinations and to hold fresh examinations is upheld. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the contentions raised in the present writ petition are not raised in the earlier petition and he would submit that the petitioner's case has to be considered on merits. 6. This court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar. 7. Referring to the provisions of Karnataka Nursing and Paramedical Sciences Education (Regulation) Authority Act, 2012 (for short 'Act'), it is urged that only the authority constituted under Section 3 of the Act can conduct the examinations exercising the power under Section 17(4) of the Act. And only the said authority can take a decision to cancel the examination and the manner in which the examinations are cancelled would demonstrate that there is no application of mind. It is submitted that the Under Secretary to Health and Family Welfare Department is not competent person to take a decision to cancel the examination. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the State Government has the power under Section 57(3) of the Act to issue necessary directions to the Officers or Authorities under the Act to carryout the purpose of this Act. 9. From reading of Section 57(3) of the Act it is apparent that the State Government has the power to issue necessary directions to the authorities or officers under the Act to carryout the object of the Act. 9. From reading of Section 57(3) of the Act it is apparent that the State Government has the power to issue necessary directions to the authorities or officers under the Act to carryout the object of the Act. It has come to the notice of the State that in certain centers there were malpractices in conducting the examinations. In this background the State has taken the decision to cancel the examinations and to hold fresh examinations. There is no difficulty in holding that the power under Section 57(3) of the Act can be exercised in a situation like this. 10. It is the contention of the petitioner that no malpractice has taken place in all centers and there is no justification to cancel the examinations in all centers. Where the State has taken a decision to hold the fresh examinations keeping in mind the larger interest of all students appearing in the examinations and also to ensure fairness and transparency in conducting the examination the decision cannot be said to be arbitrary. It is more so, in a situation where no malafides are attributed in the decision taken to cancel the previous examinations. Petitioner has not alleged any malafides against the authorities while questioning the decision. There is nothing on record the decision is taken to confer undue favour to some students or institutions where the examination is held. 11. It is also to be noticed that the W.P.No.23742/2022 is filed by the Association of Nursing and Allied Health Science Institutions. Since the decision in the said case has upheld the decision to conduct fresh examinations by canceling the earlier examinations, this Court does not find any grounds to grant the relief claimed in the petition. If the examinations conducted earlier in certain centers are allowed to be retained and examinations are held afresh in those centers where the malpractice is noticed, it will lead to a situation where there will be two different sets of question papers. Though such a thing is not altogether impermissible while conducting examinations, it is desirable to have same set of question papers to all the students appearing in different centers. In that view of the matter also the decision taken by the State to hold examinations afresh in all centers by canceling earlier examinations, is a sound decision which does not call for interference by this court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.