JUDGMENT : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order as contained in Memo number CBSE/RO/PTN/UFM/Main/ 10th/7-2025/7506 dated 31.05.2025, whereby the respondent no. 1 has cancelled the Senior Secondary Certificate Examination (SSCE)-2025 of the petitioner in all the subjects also debarring her from appearing in Board’s next year examination, 2026. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 1 to declare the result of the petitioner for 12 th Board examination, 2025. 2. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a student of Delhi Public School, Dhanbad (Respondent No. 3) from where she appeared in SSCE-2025. The centre of the said examination was at DAV Public School, BCCL, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad. The examination of subject-English Core (Subject Code-301) was scheduled on 11.03.2025. The time of commencement of the examination was 10:30 AM and entry was not permitted after 10:00 AM. On the said date, the petitioner was little late in getting ready for examination and as such in hurry, she inadvertently forgot to keep her mobile phone in her bag and carried it to the examination hall. 3. It is also submitted that as soon as the petitioner realized her mistake, she immediately switched off the mobile phone and tried to hand it over to the concerned assistant invigilator. Despite the fact that petitioner was not found using the said phone, the authorities gave her a new answer sheet and she wrote down her answer in the same. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to appear in all other papers of the SSCE-2025. 4. It is further submitted that on 29.04.2025, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice through the respondent no. 3, whereby she was informed that an Unfair Means case was registered against her in which she was called upon to appear before the ‘Unfair Means Committee’ members on 02.05.2025 at 11.30 AM. The petitioner attended the said meeting where she stated that she had inadvertently carried the mobile phone inside the examination hall during examination of the English Core subject pertaining to SSCE-2025, however, she had not used the same in course of examination. 5. The petitioner attended the said meeting where she stated that she had inadvertently carried the mobile phone inside the examination hall during examination of the English Core subject pertaining to SSCE-2025, however, she had not used the same in course of examination. 5. It is also submitted that vide Memo No. CBSE/RO/PTN/UFM/Main/10th/7-2025/7506 dated 31.05.2025, the petitioner was informed that her examination of SSCE-2025 in all the subjects was cancelled also debarring her from participating in the Board’s next year examination i.e., SSCE-2026. 6. It is also contended that the petitioner being a National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (UG)-2025 aspirant, appeared in the said test and successfully cleared it. Hence, if her result of SSCE-2025 is not declared, her career will be ruined. 7. It is argued that though the petitioner was in possession of the mobile phone in the examination hall, she had not used it and as such she was not liable to be punished for using unfair means in the examination. 8. It is further urged that ample opportunity was not provided to the petitioner to present her case. The show cause notice does not reflect the actual charge levelled against the petitioner and in absence of the same, the entire Unfair Means case initiated against her stands vitiated on ground of procedural impropriety and violation of the principles of natural justice. 9. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent-CBSE submits that the petitioner was caught with mobile phone during English Core examination pertaining to SSCE-2025 held on 11.03.2025 at 11:55 AM and as such she was booked by the Centre Superintendent and the concerned assistant invigilator of the examination centre no. 844345 (D.A.V. Public School, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad) for using unfair means and the said incident was reported to the CBSE Regional Office, Patna in prescribed format. 10. It is further submitted that the respondent-Board has framed and published detailed & comprehensive guidelines mentioning offences and penalties relating to the act of Unfair Means in order to ensure integrity, transparency, and fairness of the examination process. Moreover, copies containing detailed guidelines have already been widely circulated to all the principals of schools affiliated to the CBSE and Central Superintendents of all the examination centres vide letter No. CBSE/Coord/2025 dated 20.01.2025. Additionally, the instructions have also been reiterated through various official communications. 11. Moreover, copies containing detailed guidelines have already been widely circulated to all the principals of schools affiliated to the CBSE and Central Superintendents of all the examination centres vide letter No. CBSE/Coord/2025 dated 20.01.2025. Additionally, the instructions have also been reiterated through various official communications. 11. It is also submitted that clear instructions regarding prohibition of mobile phones and other communication devices inside the examination centre were mentioned on the Admit Card issued to each candidate including the petitioner. As per the guidelines, an intimation regarding registration of the unfair means case was communicated to the petitioner through the respondent no. 3 vide office letter dated 29.04.2025 so as to enable her to appear before the members of Unfair Means Committee for submission of her representation. The petitioner appeared before the committee members on 02.05.2025 and accepted in writing that she was carrying a mobile phone during the examination of ‘English Core’ subject. 12. It is further contended that use or even possession of a mobile phone inside an examination hall poses a grave threat to the sanctity of examination. Moreover, there is possibility to click photos of the question papers as well as to upload them on social media and receive unfair assistance from external sources, thereby compromising the fairness of the entire system. 13. It is also argued that the Board cannot make exceptions for individual candidates at the cost of jeopardizing the interests of lakhs of other genuine and law-abiding candidates. Total 06 cases of possessing mobile phones were booked under Unfair Means in Patna Region and same penalty has been imposed on all those candidates. 14. It is further submitted that the act of the petitioner falls under the category of “Unfair Means” and the same has been treated accordingly to maintain the integrity of examination. The petitioner was imposed penalty under clause 3.4 of CBSE’s UFM (Unfair Means) Guidelines which stipulates cancellation of current as well as next year’s examination in all subjects and the guilty candidate shall have to take the examination in all subjects thereafter. 15. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner was given an opportunity to submit a representation before the Unfair Means Committee and her case was examined in accordance with the procedure laid-down following the principles of natural justice. 16. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 17. 15. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner was given an opportunity to submit a representation before the Unfair Means Committee and her case was examined in accordance with the procedure laid-down following the principles of natural justice. 16. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 17. Thrust of the argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that in the examination of ‘English Core’ subject held on 11.03.2025, the petitioner was little late in getting ready for the examination and inadvertently she carried her mobile phone to the examination hall. However, as soon as she realized her mistake, she tried to hand over the same to the assistant invigilator. It is further claimed that she had not used any unfair means during the examination and it should not be concluded from mere possession of the mobile phone that she had used the same to gain any unfair advantage. 18. On the contrary, the contention of the respondent-CBSE is that in the CBSE’s UFM (Unfair Means) Guidelines as well as in the admit card, it was clearly stated that mobile and other communication devices were not allowed inside the examination centre and as such mere possession of the mobile phone with the petitioner in the examination hall was sufficient to book her for indulging in unfair means. 19. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was in possession of mobile phone during the examination of ‘English Core’ subject held on 11.03.2025, but she was not found using the same. The petitioner’s claim is that she had mistakenly carried the mobile phone with her to the examination hall, however, she tried to hand over the same to the assistant invigilator as soon as she realized the said mistake. The said claim of the petitioner is also corroborated with the content of the letter dated 11.03.2025 written by the assistant invigilator, namely, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha to the Centre Superintendent wherein he mentioned that the petitioner was trying to give him the information about possessing the mobile phone, however, he did not believe her statement and when she was frisked by a lady teacher, a mobile phone was found in her possession. 20. 20. The Centre Superintendent, D.A.V Public School, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad mentioned in his report that that the petitioner had tried to use the copying material, but had not copied any answer in the Answer Book. The said report is inconsistent with the letter of the aforesaid assistant invigilator who had allegedly caught the petitioner with a mobile phone. That apart, the assistant invigilator did not mention the time of search and recovery of mobile phone from the petitioner, whereas the Centre Superintendent mentioned in his report about the time of incident as 11:55 AM which creates serious doubt about the time of incident as the petitioner has claimed that as soon as she realized about possession of mobile phone, she tried to hand it over to the assistant invigilator. 21. Moreover, neither in the show cause notice nor in the impugned memo dated 31.05.2025, it was stated as to under which category of the CBSE UFM (Unfair Means) Guidelines, the petitioner was proceeded with. The respondent-CBSE has contended before this court that the petitioner was booked under Category 3.4 of the CBSE UFM (Unfair Means) Guidelines which provides that if a person is in possession, uses or attempts to use of any electronic device (including mobile phone) after entering the examination centre, his current as well as next year’s examination in all subjects will be cancelled and he shall have to take the examination in all subjects thereafter. It has further been provided that the allegation should be supported by the report of concerned invigilator/checking staff. 22. The report of the Centre Superintendent does not speak about the allegation mentioned under Category 3.4 of the CBSE UFM (Unfair Means) Guidelines, rather the allegation made by him would come under the category 1.5 of the Unfair Means Guidelines which speaks about having copying material (hard copy etc.) in possession of the delinquent student but has not used it. Under the said category of allegation, there is a provision of giving benefit of doubt to such student against whom no evidence is available to testify the foul intent on his/her part. Thus, even if the report of the Centre Superintendent is taken as true, then also the petitioner should be given the benefit of doubt as there was no evidence to testify her foul intent. 23. Thus, even if the report of the Centre Superintendent is taken as true, then also the petitioner should be given the benefit of doubt as there was no evidence to testify her foul intent. 23. As per the letter of the assistant invigilator, the petitioner herself was trying to give him information about possessing the mobile phone. The allegation mentioned under Category 3.4 of the CBSE UFM (Unfair Means) Guidelines was also not supported by the letter of the assistant invigilator. Thus, it is not a case of recovery of mobile phone from the possession of the petitioner in true sense. Though, undoubtedly the petitioner had committed mistake by carrying mobile phone to the examination hall, the bonafide of the petitioner is reflected from her conduct that she herself disclosed the assistant invigilator about having the mobile phone. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had not used the mobile phone in the examination hall. 24. It further appears to this court from the counter affidavit of the respondent no. 3 that the petitioner was a meritorious and disciplined student in Delhi Public School, Dhanbad during her period of study i.e., from 2011 to 2025 and no disciplinary proceeding or complaint of any nature was ever initiated or was pending against her during the said period. 25. The contention of the respondent-CBSE is that all the students who were caught having mobile phones in the examination hall have been given the same punishment. However, the fact of the present case is an exceptional one where the claim of the petitioner finds support with the letter of the assistant invigilator that she was trying to give information about possessing the mobile phone and hence, her case cannot be equated with the cases of other students (if any). Thus, the impugned order dated 31.05.2025 cancelling the SSCE-2025 examination of the petitioner in all the subjects is fit to be quashed and set aside. 26. For the reasons as aforesaid, the impugned order as contained in memo no. CBSE/RO/PTN/UFM/Main/10th/ 7-2025/ 7506 dated 31.05.2025 is hereby quashed and set aside. The CBSE is directed to forthwith declare the petitioner’s result of 12 th Board examination, 2025. 27. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. 28. Consequently, I.A. No. 9731 of 2025 also stands disposed of.