1 17 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6466/2006 Ms.Geeta Katara & Ors. Vs. The Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Date of Order :: 28th January 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI None present for the petitioners. Mr.B.L.Bhati, for the respondents. .... BY THE COURT By way of this joint writ petition by 11 petitioners, challenge is sought to be given to the Notification dated 04.08.2006 (Annex.3) as issued by the Board of Secondary Education for Rajasthan, Ajmer (‘the Board’ hereafter) canceling the Secondary School Examination 2006 that was taken by the petitioners particularly after finding them guilty of use of unfair means. While denying the allegation of use of unfair means, the petitioners have stated in this writ petition that the Board has acted arbitrarily in canceling the entire examination although under the communication dated 03.07.2006, the allegation had only been in relation to Maths-II paper. In this writ petition, notices were ordered to be issued on 12.11.2006. After service, the respondent Board has submitted its reply and has pointed out that the examiner concerned, while checking the answer-books of Maths-II paper of the Centre of examination of the petitioners, made the complaint 2 about identical answers in such answer-books whereupon the case was registered and was placed before the Result Committee who ordered withholding of the result of the candidates of the Centre concerned and appointed two subjects experts; that the candidates were noticed and they were extended the opportunity to explain; and that ultimately, after examining the reports of the examiner, the experts, and the hearing officer, the Committee found it to be a case of mass copying and took the decision to cancel the examination of the petitioners and the Centre Superintendent was debarred for three years and enquiry was also suggested against him. The answering respondent has referred to the prevailing rule whereunder the Board is entitled to cancel the entire examination in such cases of mass copying. On 28.04.2008, this Court noticed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that instructions would be sought as to the cause of how many of the petitioners survived and so also noted the objection of the counsel for the respondent about maintainability of joint writ petition. While adjourning the matter for two weeks for filing additional affidavit, this Court also directed that additional court fees for 10 petitioners shall be deposited. Neither any additional affidavit has been filed nor the requisite court fee has been paid nor is anyone present for the petitioners. 3 The submission as made in the writ petition remains totally baseless. It is noticed from the document Annexure-R/2 that it was a case of mass copying in the paper of Maths-II; and there appears no reason to interfere with such finding on facts arrived at by the respondent Board after due consideration. When it has been found as a fact that the petitioners were guilty of mass copying, even when the allegation had been in relation to one particular paper, cancellation of the entire examination as taken by the petitioners cannot be said to be improper. Learned counsel for the respondent Board has rightly referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Anand Mohan Jha & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Anr.: 2005 (2) WLC 519 wherein this Court has expressed disinclination to interfere with the matters relating to the use of unfair means. The decision as taken by the Board cannot be said to be unjustified nor calls for any interference. It seems that the petitioners have also lost interest in prosecuting this baseless writ petition. The requirements of the order dated 28.04.2008 have not been complied with; neither the requisite court fees has paid nor additional affidavit has been filed; and then, nobody has chosen to appear for the petitioners. However, there being no substance in this writ petition, the same stands dismissed on merits. 4 s.soni (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.