A university has the implied power to cancel the results of an examination in respect of a Centre as part of its power to control examinations, and such cancellation can be justified based on sufficient material indicating widespread malpractice.

B. N. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners who had taken the Annual Intermediate Examination in Arts of the Utkal University from the Kharasrota College Centre, Singhpur in the year 1982 have challenged the notification of the University, dated 5-6-82, Annexure 6, cancelling the result of the candidates who had taken the I. A. Examination, 1982 from the aforesaid Centre.

( 2 ) OPPOSITE party No. 2 is the Principal of the Kharasrota College, Singhpur. The Annual I. A. Examination was held at the College Centre from 15-3-82 till 12-4 82. After the two persons who had been appointed as Centre Superintendents declined to act as such one after the other, the examination commenced on 153-82 with opposite party No. 2 acting as the Centre Superintendent, vide Annexure 2 (b ). Dr. P. C. Mohapatra, one of the two Supervisors appointed for the Centre, inspected the Centre on 16-3-82. It is alleged by the petitioners that as Dr. Mohapatra had an unpleasant incident with an outsider, he submitted a biased report against the Centre to the University. On 18-3-82 opposite party No. 3 appeared before opposite party No. 2 at the Centre with a letter from Principal Shri G. N. Acharya who was then a member of the Syndicate and demanded that he should be allowed to act as the Superintendent of the Centre. Opposite party No. 2 turned down the demand on the ground that without authorisation from the University it was not open to him to hand over charge of the office of the Centre Superintendent. On 19-3-82 opposite party No. 2 received a telegram from the University intimating the appointment of opposite party No. 3 as the Centre Superintendent, vide Annexure 3 (a ). On 22-3-82 opposite party No. 2 handed over charge of the office of Centre Superintendent to opposite party No. 3 and the latter conducted the examination as the Centre Superintendent from 23-3-82 till its conclusion on 12-4-82. On 26-3-82 the Vice-Chancellor of Utkal University sent a telegram to opposite party No. 3 that rampant malpractice at the Centre had been reported and that the Syndicate was contemplating cancellation of the Centre. A copy of the telegram was sent by post to opposite party No. 2 in which it was further stated that if the situation did not show marked improvement immediately the Centre might be cancelled. After the examination was over the petitioners were expecting the results to be published, but to their surprise as per Annexure 6 the University cancelled the I. A. Examination results of the Centre. It is stated that during the examination 9 cases of malpractice had been reported on 16-3-82, 7 cases on 30-3-82 and one case on 31-3-82 and out of these 17 cases, only 5 were regular candidates. The notification as per Annexure 6 is impugned on the ground of mala fides of the Vice-chancellor and some members of the Syndicate. It is pointed out that Shri G. N. Acharya, as a member of the Syndicate, had no authority to appoint the Centre Superintendent and, therefore, opposite party No. 2 was justified in not handing over charge of the office of the Centre Superintendent to opposite party No. 3 until due authorisation was received by him. It is suggested that because of the misunderstanding between opposite party No. 2 on the one hand and Shri G. N. . Acharya and the members of the Syndicate on the other, the careers of the petitioners have been sacrificed for no fault of theirs. The action of the University is said to be the result of malice, prejudice and mala fides. The petitioners have also stated that the examinations were conducted in a proper manner with adequate police arrangements and there was no interference from any quarters. Annexure 6 is also challenged on the ground of being in excess of the powers of the Syndicate. The petitioners have accordingly prayed that Annexure 6 should be quashed.

( 3 ) IN its counter opposite party No. 1 (the University) has sought to justify its action in cancelling the Annual I. A. Examination of the Centre. It is stated th