JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. The petitioner appeared in the Intermediate Examination held in 2005 by the Board of High School & Intermediate Education, Allahabad. The result of the petitioner had been withheld. On 24.6.2005 the petitioner was issued a charge sheet by the Assistant Secretary of the Board and she was required to show cause as to why, on the basis of the charges mentioned therein, the examination of the petitioner be not cancelled. The charge was that on 16.3.2005, while appearing in Chemistry 1st paper examination, in a surprise inspection conducted by the Flying Squad, the petitioner was found in possession of two printed chits. In the said notice it was not mentioned as to from where or which part of the body of the petitioner the said chits had been recovered. The notice was on a cyclostyled sheet, stating that the said chits were found on her desk/in her answer copy/ inside her pocket/inside her shoes; but no particular place was specified. In response, the petitioner submitted her reply on 8.8.2005, categorically denying the charges leveled against her. It was specifically stated that the chits did not belong to her, and even if the same may have been found lying under her table or chair, the same could not be attributed to be belonging to the petitioner, as it was not even specified as to from where and how the same had been recovered. After receipt of reply, by order dated 24.6.2005, passed on a printed sheet (after filing in the blank columns), the examination of the petitioner, for the intermediate examination of the year 2005 has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner was found using unfair means in Chemistry 1st Paper of the said examination and consequently the results were also cancelled.
2. I have heard Sri V.K. Nagaich, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned Standing Counsel has produced the relevant answer copy of Chemistry 1st Paper of Intermediate. Examination of the petitioner and thus this writ petition has been heard and is being disposed of finally at this stage, without calling for counter affidavit.
3. The submission of the petitioner is that, in the absence of the respondents having specified as to from where and which part of the body, the chits had been recovered, it as neither possible for the petitioner to submit any reply nor the same could have been treated as the papers recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The further submission is that at the time when the flying squad had inspected, the petitioner was solving the question paper and the chits may have been lying near her table/chair or the same may have been thrown by some candidate towards her side, which could not mean to be belonging to her, and thus she has been wrongly implicated in the case. It has further been contended that even in the notice it has been specifically mentioned that the said chits were not found to be used by the petitioner in answering any question of the examination or that the same could have been used in answering any question; and that the authority has passed the impugned order without application of mind and considering the explanation of the petitioner. In such view of the matter, it has been urged that the results of the examination of the petitioner have wrongly been, cancelled and the impugned order dated 24.10.2005 is liable to be set aside.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. From a plain reading of the impugned order, it is clear that the same has been passed mechanically, without application of mind and even without considering the explanation which was given by the petitioner in reply to the chargesheet. Alleged recovery of chits from the possession of the 'petitioner is also doubtful, as no specific place of recovery has been mentioned. The petitioner is entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. Even the own case of the respondents is that the chits were neither used in solving any answer nor the same could have been used for such purposes. The record pertaining to the case, which has been produced before me, includes the said chits, which are two small pieces of printed papers. On perusal of the same, in my opinion also the same could not have been used for solving any question.
5. As such, for the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 24.10.2005 passed by the respondent Board is liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, quashed. It is further directed that the respondents shall forthwith declare the result of Intermediate Examination 2005 of the petitioner and also issue her the marksheet.
6. This writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.