Order

Special leave granted.

2. We feel a little distressed that in a matter like this the High Court should have interfered with the decision taken by the Board. The contention was that the examination was cancelled on the report of a Naib Tehsildar dated 18.3.1996 who was not authorised by the Board to visit the examination centre. It is irrelevant whether the Naib Teh­sildar was authorised by the Board to visit the Centre or not but what is of importance is the fact that he did visit the centre and found the students copying even before the question papers were distributed. This clearly implies that the students were aware of the questions indicative of the leakage of the question paper. The Naib Tehsildar even complained that the teachers did not object to the students entering the examination hall with books and copying material. That would mean that either they were hand in glove with the students or, they were, for some reason not able to stop the students from copying. This is also evident from the report of the Superintendent of the Centre. The Naib Tehsildar states that neither the Superintendent of the Centre nor the invigilators were prepared to interfere and were not abl