JUDGMENT

B.D. Gupta, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has come up before us in consequence of an order passed by a learned single Judge referring the petition for decision by a larger Bench. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and having scrutinised the material before us, we are of opinion that this petition must succeed.

2. Petitioner Prabhat Kumar appeared at the High School Examination of 1970. He was a student of the Parker Intermediate College at Moradabad. The centre, where the petitioner appeared at the examination, was situate in the premises of K.G.K. Inter College. In consequence of some information communicated to the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. (hereinafter referred to as the Board) that unfair means had been adopted by examinees at the aforesaid centre, an Enquiry Committee was appointed which investigated into the complaint of use of unfair means at a meeting held on the 16th of July, 1970. A charge-sheet appears to have been handed over to the petitioner at that meeting. The petitioner's roll number was 134404. The charge-sheet contained allegation of use of unfair means in answering question Nos. 2 (b) and 7 (b) of mathematics first paper. Another examinee, whose roll number was 134405, had answered the same paper at the same centre. The substance of the charge was that the answers recorded by the examinee, bearing roll No. 134405, contained mistakes in answers given to question No. 2 (b) which had striking similarity to the mistakes committed by the petitioner in the answers recorded by the petitioner. The charge in regard to question No. 7 (b) was that even though the answer recorded by the petitioner to the above question was correct, certain symbols used by the petitioner in recording his answers were incorrect. On the basis of the details given above, the charge was that the petitioner had used unfair means in answering the question referred to above, also. After the petitioner was handed over the charge-sheet on the 16th of July, 1970, the petitioner recorded certain answers against the questionnaire incorporated in the charge-sheet. The petitioner admitted similarity in the mistakes in the answer to question No. 2 (b) but added that he could not explain how the similarity occurred. The further assertion made by the petitioner was that whereas the petitioner had his seat in the front row, the other examinee bearing roll No. 134405 had his seat very close to the petitioner's seat and behind the petitioner's seat in the second row. In regard to question No. 7 (b) , the petitioner's reply was that in his college exercise book, the solution to the question stood recorded in the form in which he had answered it at the examination, and that that was the reason for the mistake in the symbols. It may be added here that the Enquiry Committee, which investigated into the matter on the 16th of July, 1970 appears to have been appointed under bye-law 46 of the Board. This Committee after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, recorded its conclusion on the 7th of September, 1970 holding that the petitioner, as also the examinee bearing roll No. 134405, had, both, used unfair means in answering the questions referred to above. The recommendation of the said Committee was also recorded along with its conclusion which was to the effect that the result of the examination of both the examinees for the year 1970 be annulled and further that none of them be allowed to appear at the examination to be held in 1971.

3. Under Sub-clause (b) of clause (b) of Chapter VI of the Regulations, the authority to record orders and to award punishment lay with the Examinations Committee. The conclusion recorded by the Sub-committee on the 7th of September, 1970, together with the recommendation made by that Committee, came up for consideration before the Examinations Committee on various dates, viz., 7th, 8th and 9th of September, 1970, and