IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4110 of 2010 1. PRACHI KUMARI D/O SRI HARSH NATH LABH R/O VILL DHANADHI,P.O.DHANADHI,P.S.SURSAND,DISTT- SITAMARHI,BIHAR 2. SHANKAR RAY S/O KUDI RAM RAY,C/O ANJANI KUMAR BHAGAT R/O VILL VAIROPATTI,P.O.MILKICHAK,P.S.BAHADURPUR,DISTT- DARBHANGA,BIHAR Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NEW DELHI 2. THE DIRECTOR ,NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF OPEN SCHOOLING NEW DELHI 3. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR,NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF OPEN SCHOOLING LALIT BHAWAN ,BAILEY ROAD,PATNA,BIHAR ----------- 2. 5.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and for the National Institute of Open Schooling. The relief sought is for publication of results of the petitioners who appeared in Class-Xth examination held in April, 2009 conducted by the respondent school. The counter affidavit of the respondents states that due to mass copying and use of unfair means during the examination, the Unfair Means Committee cancelled the entire examination and debarred candidates from appearing in the next October/November, 2009 examination in any subject. Paragraph-9 states that this decision was conveyed to the candidates inter alia by E-mail. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that no show cause notice was given to them before cancellation of the examination stands answered 2 by the law laid down in (2005) 8 SCC 180 (Union of Indian Vs. Joseph P. Cherian ) holding at Paragraph-5 as follows:- “5. We find that the High Court’s approach is clearly indefensible. There was no challenge to the cancellation of the result in the writ petition. In fact, the High Court itself noted that on the basis of a single individual’s challenge the question whether the examination in its entirety was to be nullified was not examined. Yet it granted relief to the respondent employee with clearly unsustainable directions. The High Court’s view appears to be that if unfair means were adopted at one centre, result of other centres should not have been cancelled. This view is wholly indefensible. The Staff Court of Inquiry recorded a finding that there were serious irregularities in the conduct of examination at Jallandhar centre and unfair means on a large scale were adopted. There was leakage of question papers and its transmission to candidates at other centres through modern modes of communication was not ruled out. Having regard to all these factors, the decision to cancel the examination was taken. When the results of 1995 examination have been cancelled, the question of the respondent employee’s case being considered on the basis of marks secured by him at the said examination does not arise. As is settled in a long line of decisions, while considering the case of mass malpractice there is no scope of examining an individual’s case.” This Court therefore finds no infirmity in the action of the respondents. The application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)