JUDGMENT

P. K. MOHANTY, J. — The petitioner calls in question the decision of the opp.party-Utkal University in cancelling the result in Paper-VI of M.A. (English) Examination, 1999 for Non-Collegiate private candidates conducted in Rural Institute of Higher Studies, Bhograi centre.

2. The petitioner’s case in brief is that he appeared at the M. A. Examination in English as a private Non-Collegiate candidate under Utkal University in the year 1998 and had only passed in three papers out of eight for which he repeated the rest five papers in the next examination of the year 1999 and took the examination in the Rural Institute of Higher Studies, Bhograi centre. The petitioner asserts that when the results were pub¬lished, he found that the marks he secured in Paper-VI in the year 1998 have been reflected in his mark sheet and on enquiry learnt that the result in paper-VI of the 1999 examination was not taken into account since it was cancelled because of mass malpractice in the centre. The petitioner said to have made a representation, but received no response from the University. Hence the present writ application.

3. The opp.party-University has filed a counter affidavit denying the claim made stating inter alia that the examination in respect of M.A. Paper-VI of the petitioner for the year 1999 has been cancelled for mass malpractice along with other examinees appearing in the said centre. It is stated that the petitioner’s mark in Paper-VI having made ‘00’ because of cancellation of the examination, the mark he had secured in that paper in the previ¬ous year was taken into account and as such it was reflected in the mark sheet supplied to him, since 1999 examination was a repeat examination for the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner had appeared at the M.A. (English) examination, 1998 as a Non-Collegiate private candidate through the College of Teacher Education, Balasore centre and had passed the examination in Third Class securing 367 marks and, therefore, in the year 1999 he repeated Papers-I, II, V, VII and VIII and appeared at the examination through the Rural Institute of Higher Studies, Bhograi centre. The examinations conducted in Papers-IV and VI of the centre were cancelled due to mass malpractice by notification dated 3.8.2000, a copy of which is Annexure-R/1. It is the speci¬fic case of the University that the papers were cancelled on the basis of the report of the Supervisors deputed by the University to oversee the conduct of examination since according to the reports the examination was not conducted in accordance with the Rules and the examinees had adopted mass malpractice. The peti¬tioner who repeated Paper-VI, therefore, was to be awarded ‘00’ marks and since the earlier mark was available, the said marks were reflected in the mark sheet.

4. In order to satisfy ourselves, we called for the report of the Supervisors deputed for over-seeing the conduct of exami¬nation in the concerned centre and Sri Patri, learned counsel for the University has produced the same for our perusal. The report reveals and it has been specifically mentioned in the report that the Invigilators were not in motion and were sitting or standing and watching the observers. Notes etc. were found in the verandah and the holes of the walls. In the prescribed proforma of report at clause-E with regard to observance of Examination Rules :

(1) Whether candidates were trying to help each other to use incriminating materials-

The answer has been given as ‘No’.

(2) Whether there was any attempt for bringing in outside assistance-

The answer had been 'No' and thereafter had been said 'Yes' after scoring out 'No'.

(3) Whether incriminating materials were found scattered in the examination hall and/ or verandah-

The answer is ‘Not inside hall, but within premises like urinal & walls.'

(4) Instances of unfair means detected by the supervisors. The cases detected with full particulars including time of detec¬tion should be reported in the pro