JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. The petitioner's result was cancelled for adopting unfair means in the examination hall during the 1990 High School examination. The petitioner alleges that the authorities had cancelled the result on the ground that he had copied from the answer book of two other students, according to him, who were sitting in a different room than that in which the petitioner was sitting. He also alleges that he was not given proper opportunity. He further contends that even the finding appears to be perverse, therefore, his result should be declared.
2. Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner was given proper opportunity in the process and the authorities had found that he had adopted unfair means. This being a finding of fact, this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction should not interfere with the same. Whether the petitioner was sitting in one room and the co-students were sitting in another room cannot be ascertained by this Court. But it appears from the record itself that question No. 3 (b) of English Paper II was answered by three students which depicted same kind of mistake and word by word they were similar. This being a finding of fact, on the basis whereof the authorities having arrived at objective satisfaction, this Court cannot Intervene.
3. Shri Pratap Narain Gangwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that by order dated 1.9.1992, the learned standing counsel was directed to produce the records in respect of other two co-students and obtain instruction as to whether the result of those students are cancelled or not but learned standing counsel did neither produce the record nor sought instruction. Therefore, in the absence of documents or production of record or instruction, this Court should draw adverse Inference and declare the result of the petitioner.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel at length.
5. In the counter-affidavit in paragraph 6, it has been pointed out that the petitioner was asked to appear before the spot enquiry committee. He was also charged for using unfair means in solving question No. 3 (b) of English second paper wherein it was found that the answer was word by word similar even tn respect of mistakes in the answer book of the petitioner and that of the two other students having Roll No. 1339182 and 1339190.
6. The examination committee after having considered the explanation of the petitioner did not agree to the explanation of the petitioner and had cancelled the result. This decision was communicated to the petitioner. Particulars thereof has been disclosed in paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit. In paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit, it has been pointed that the answer books of the examination centre of the petitioner were screened by three member screening committee and found that the petitioner had used unfair means in English second paper. Thus, it appears that before passing the order of cancellation, the authority had taken adequate care and caution. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the examination committee in cancelling the petitioner's result.
7. So far as the question as to whether the result of other two students mentioned in the counter-affidavit has been cancelled or not is concerned, it appears from Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit by which the petitioner's result was cancelled and the decision of the examination committee was communicated, the result of the candidates bearing Roll Nos. 1339182 and 1339190 were also cancelled along with that of the petitioner having Roll No. 1339221 which is apparent from column Nos. 3 and 4 of the said order. Therefore, it is on record that the result of the two other candidates have also been cancelled as such non-production of the record as directed by order dated 1.9.1992 will not materially alter the situation particularly when these facts are not being denied by the petitioner by filing rejoinder-affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute having served with the copy of the counter-affidavit containing the said annexure and concedes that no rejoinder to the counter-affidavit has been filed.
8. Unless the statement made in the counter-affidavit supporting the said annexure is contradicted or controverted, it is not necessary to call for the record in order to ascertain the disputed question of fact. Inasmuch as the fact disclosed in the counter-affidavit has not been disputed by means of any rejoinder. Unless it is disputed by the petitioner, it cannot be said that there is any existence of dispute which requires decision upon production of the record for arriving at a conclusion with regard to the disputed fact.
9. In that view of the matter, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
There will be however no order as to cost.