The main legal point established in the judgment is that a handwriting expert's report can provide conclusive evidence in cases of impersonation, justifying the cancellation of admission.

Heard counsel for the parties.

2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"To quash the order bearing no. 2875 dated 1310.2012 bearing order no. 2875/12 issued by the Controller of Examination, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (B.C.E.C.E.B), Patna. Who he has cancelled the admission of the petitioner (D.C.E.C.E-2009 PE Roll No. 80105263 Merit SC-110) Mechanical of Naveen Rajkiya Polytechnique College, Patna on the grounds that the hand writing of the petitioner in the written test and counseling does not fully tally from Forensic Science Laboratory Test and inspite of the notices issued by the respondents on different dates the petitioner has not filed any show cause which is against the norms and Rules of the Act. Sec.(15C).

(ii) To allow the petitioner to appear in (sixth) last Semester Examination of final year in the light of the order passed by this Hon'ble High Court in C.W.J.C NO. 5353/2012 dated 27.08.2012.

(iii) To holds the provision contained in rules-15 and Sub-Clause 15(1) of the memorandum of Diploma Certificate Entrance Competitive Examination 2009 in which no any proviso that respondents may have asked the petitioner to swear an affidavit and gave no undertaking the respondents may have taken any action in future after a long time for unfair in entrance examination, under clause-15 sub-clause (1) it is an statutory mandatory provision that at the time of the counseling the respondents can verified the documents then allotted the college as per choice for admission."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had appeared in Diploma Certificate Entry Competitive Examination 2009 conducted by B.C.E.C.E Board and on 18.08.2009, the petitioner was issued a call letter for counseling.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner was also allotted a College and he had taken admission in new Polytechnic College, Patna in Mechanical branch on 11.12.2009.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also explained that the petitioner was continuing without any impediment and had cleared up to fifth semester without any backlog but all of a sudden on 26.05.2012, he was given a show cause notice to explain as to why his admission should not be cancelled on the ground that the handwriting of the petitioner in the answer-book of admission test was found to be totally different to the handwriting of the petitioner obtained from him in course of counseling which was reflective of the fact that someone had impersonated in place of the petitioner in course of admission test. It has been explained that the petitioner, however, could not file his show cause reply on account of belated receipt of the show cause notice and the authorities even without complying the principles of natural justice have passed the order dated 13.12.2012 cancelling the admission of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on some portion of the report of the FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) to contend that there was no such clear report to hold the proof of charge of impersonation of the petitioner in course of admission test.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand have placed before this Court not only the relevant facts noted at length in the show cause notice but also to the reasoned order which has been passed by the Examination Controller on 13.10.2012. According to the learned counsel for the respondents there were overwhelming materials to show that someone had impersonated the petitioner at the time of appearing in the written examination and when this aspect become fully clear from the report of the FSL, the admission of the petitioner was cancelled in view of his own undertaking given at the time of his counseling. In this context, he has also referred to an order dated 31.01.2013 passed in L.P.A No. 576 of 2011, wherein, this Court had upheld similar impugned orders cancelling the admis