The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of interference with the opinion formed by the experts in the field, as well as the well-settled law on the issue.

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

1. Since W.P. (C) No. 491 and 958 of 2011 involve common facts and question of law, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Challenge in this petition is to the notification dated 01.01.2011 (Annexure P/l) whereby the result of the Petitioners of B.A. Part I, Regular, (Economics) II paper, has been cancelled.

3. The brief facts, in nutshell, as projected by the Petitioners are that the Petitioners are the students of B.A. Part II pursuing their studies at Government Naveen Degree College, Gharghoda, District Raigarh. The Petitioners participated in B.A. Part I examination for the academic session March-April, 2010 and they were found successful which is evident from Marksheet of B.A. Part I (Annexure P/2). Thereafter, the Petitioners were permitted to take admission in B.A. Part II in the Respondent No. 4-College and began their studies on regular basis. The Petitioners have deposited admission fee etc. in the Respondent No. 4-College. The Respondent-University issued a show cause notice (Annexure R/l-4 and Annexure P/4, respectively) asto why examination of the subject, Economics II paper of B.A. Part I, held on 12.04.2010 may not be cancelled. Reply to the said notice was filed on 09.09.2010 (Annexure P/5 to W.P.(C) No. 958/2011) stating therein that they have prepared their answers on the basis of Ajay Mala series but there was no mass copying in the examination. Thereafter, the Petitioners were directed to deposit the mark sheet of B.A. Part I, issued earlier. As a sequel, by notification dated 01.01.2011 (Annexure P/l), the result of the subject Economics, II paper, of B.A. Part I, was declared as cancelled. Thus, this petition.

4. Shri M.K. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners would submit that once the Petitioners have been declared as 'pass', the cancellation of the result of B.A. Part I, Economics, II paper, is an afterthought and the same is illegal. Secondly, if there was any mass copying, the result of the entire examination ought to have been cancelled and not of only 18 students of examination centre No. 180 including the Petitioners. There was no question of mass copying at all. Further, once the Petitioners have taken admission in B.A. Part II and started attending classes regularly, the Petitioners should not be deprived of appearance in the examination of B.A. Part II as the Petitioners would further lose one year on account of illegal action on the part of the Respondent authorities.

5. Per contra, Shri Ashish Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 to 3 would submit that the examination centre No. 68, Navin Ashashkiya Mahavidyalaya, Gharghoda was the examination centre for the students of the said college as well as for the students of examination centre No. 180. They appeared in the examination alongwith the students of examination centre No. 68. The students of examination centre No. 68 indulged into mass copying in the subject, Economics II paper of B.A. Part I for the academic session March-April, 2010. Therefore, the action of the Respondent-University to cancel the result of the subject, Economics II paper, of B.A. Part I, of the examination centre No. 68, is just and proper. The candidates appearing at Ashashkiya Naveen Degree College, Gharghoda, were found having indulged in group copying. The Examination Superintendent of Examination Centre No. 68 sent a preliminary information to the Registrar (Confidential) of the Respondent-University stating that prima facie, it appears that there was a group copying in the examination centre from Roll No. 90276 to 90302 and 987291 to 87400 vide communication dated 6.05.2010 (Annexure R/2). The said communication was forwarded to the Chairman, Board of Studies of Economics on 16.06.2010 (Annexure R/l-3). The Chairman, after examining all the papers came to the conclusion that there was a high probability of mass copying in the said paper by the above-stated candidates. Thereafter, a sho