JUDGMENT

P. K. MOHANTY, J. — The petitioner, Governing Body of Jambe¬swar Mahavidyalaya in the district of Balasore, calls in question the decision of the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa in Notification dated 25.6.2004 cancelling the examination held in English Paper-II in second sitting of Higher Secondary Exami¬nation, 2004 on 11.3.2004 on the ground that there was no materi¬al before the Examination Committee to come to a conclusion that either there was mass malpractice in the center or the examina¬tion in the center on the relevant date was not conducted in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Council.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner-college was permitted to be established from the academic session 1995-96 by the Government and it was affiliated by the Council from the said session and permanent recognition was also accord¬ed. 107 regular students of the petitioner-college appeared in +2 Arts Final Examination, 2004 as per the date and time schedule fixed by the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa. It is claimed that the examinees appeared at the examination and the examination was conducted by the Center Superintendent strictly in accordance with the norms prescribed by the Council. There was absolutely no malpractice nor any such malpractice was ever detected during the second sitting of the examination in English Paper-II on 11.3.2004. However, it is submitted that one Goura¬hari Behera, Lecturer in History of Atalbihari College, Basudev¬pur visited the center on 9.3.2004 as observer and invigilateed the examination of English Paper-I. The examination was found to have been conducted in accordance with the norms prescribed by the Council. On 11.3.2004, one Pratap Kumar Nayak, Lecturer in History of Atalabihari College, Basudevpur visited the center as an observer of the Council when English Paper-II was being con¬ducted during the second sitting. He thoroughly checked each student with the help of invigilators and Center Superintendent and remained throughout the examination. No student was detected to have indulged in adoption of unfair means or possessing nei¬ther incriminating materials nor any such students was booked for malpractice. However, it is alleged that the Examination Committee of the Council, on the basis of the purported report submitted by the observer, had illegally taken a decision to cancel the said examination and awarded “0” mark in English Paper-II. The Council has notified so in Annexure-1. The Principal, soon after the notification appealed to the Council that absolutely no malprac¬tice having been done nor detected by the Supervisor nor the Supervisor having found any irregularity or illegality in the conduct of examination, the cancellation of the examination center was bad and liable to be revised. However, nothing having happened, on the representation of the petitioner, it has ap¬proached this Court in the present writ petition.

3. The Council, through its Controller of Examination, has filed a counter refuting the allegations and claims made by the petitioner. The Council has taken the stand that the Center Superintendent who himself is the Principal of the College, violating the norms and instruction of the Council, was himself along with other teaching staff of the College involved in dic¬tating answers to the examinees which has been noted and reported by the observer Sri P. K. Nayak. The Council has rightly taken a decision to cancel the examination and awarded “0” marks to all the students who were appearing in English Paper-II conducted in the center. It is submitted in Paragraph-6 of the counter affida¬vit that though the observer deputed on 9.3.2004 had not given adverse remarks on the conduct of the examination, the observer deputed for the subsequent sitting i.e. on 11.3.2004 found mass malpractice and mass copy in the said College Center and further reported that the Center Superintendent as well as other staffs were supp