WP(C) No.31708 of 2025 ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK WP(C) No.31708 of 2025 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. *** Sri Omkrish Mishra. … Petitioner. -VERSUS- Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi represented through its Chairman, CBSE Integrated Office Complex, New Delhi & Others … Opposite Parties. Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioner : Mr. Kunal Kumar Swain, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. T. Pattanayak, Adv. (For the CBSE) P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA WP(C) No.31708 of 2025 Date of Hearing : 11.03.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 20.03.2026 JUDGMENT ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.— 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the impugned memorandum dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure-6) issued by the Under Secretary (Confidential), Central Board of Secondary Education, Regional Office, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.3) and for issuance of necessary directions to the Opp. Parties to publish the result of the petitioner, in respect of his Senior School Certificate Examination, 2025 (Class-XII) within a stipulated time and to pass such other order/orders or direction/directions as the Courts deems fit and proper in order to give complete relief to the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, he petitioner was a regular student of Class-XII of Padampur Public School in the District of Bargarh. He (petitioner) appeared his Senior School Certificate Examination, 2025 (Class-XII) under the Central Board of Secondary Education in Odisha Adarsha Vidyalaya, WP(C) No.31708 of 2025 Bandupali in the District of Bargarh as a regular student on the basis of the admit card vide Annexure-1 issued to him by the CBSE (Opp. Party No.1). Though, in the said examination, he (petitioner) had done extremely well, but his result in the website was published on dated 13.05.2025 in Annexure-2 reflecting as UFM (Unfair Means) and no marks were awarded to him in any paper. Subsequent thereto, the Principal, Padampur Public School, Padampur provided the official order dated 26.05.2025 issued by the Regional Direction, Central Board of Secondary Education, Regional Office, Bhubaneswar (Annexure-3) stating that, the result of the petitioner in two subjects i.e. Chemistry (Subject Code: 043) and English (Subject Code:301) were cancelled on the ground of adoption of unfair means (UFM) during examination as in respect of Chemistry it was alleged that, the language used for writing answers are found same with many adjacent students of the examination hall. So far as the subject English is concerned, it was mentioned that, in all the sets, most of the answers were written in same pattern with many adjacent students of WP(C) No.31708 of 2025 the examination hall. For which, his entire result of 2025 was cancelled. To which, the petitioner challenged by filing WPC No.15942/2025 praying for quashing the cancellation of his result and to direct the Opp. Parties to publish his result. The said Writ Petition vide WPC No.15942/2025 of the petitioner was decided analogously with other writ petitions by this Court and the Judgment thereof was passed on dated 15.09.2025 as per Annexure-4, wherein, the C.B.S.E (Opp. Party No.1) was directed to make an enquiry in terms of Bye- Laws 36 of the CBSE after giving reasonable opportunity of participation to the petitioner stipulating the outer limit of that enquiry within two weeks keeping all the contentions of the parties open. In pursuance to the said analogous Judgment passed on dated 15.09.2025 in WPC No.15942/2025 along with other WPCs vide Annexure-4 by this Court, the CBSE (Opp. Party No.1) conducted an enquiry into the matter through its UFM Sub-Committee and during the course of that enquiry, the UFM Sub-Committee of the CBSE supplied a printed format to WP(C) No.31708 of 2025 the petitioner asking him 18 questions in the form of answering yes or no such as i) whether he has adopted unfair means or not, ii) what is the name of his principal iii) Do you know the invigilators etc. Out of the said 18 questions, the above 3 questions were not related to the subjects in question and 6 questions were asked to the petitioner in respect of various subjects such as: Physics, English, Chemistry, Mathematics, Economics and Biology and most of the questions were not related to the subjects i.e. Chemistry and English, in respect of which, there was allegation of malpractice against the petitioner. 3. Thereafter, a copy of the memorandum dated 08.10.2025 vide Annexure-6 was issued by the Under Secretary (Confidential), Central Board of Secondary Education, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.3) on behalf of Opp. Party No.1 (CBSE) to the petitioner informing him that: You are found indulged in Unfair Means activity under Rule 36.2(vi) & (viii) of the Examination Bye-Laws. Accordingly, as per Rule 36.3(v) of the Examination Bye- Laws of the Board, your result of Main Examination 2025 is WP(C) No.31708 of 2025 hereby cancelled in the subject(s) (i.e. O43-Chemistry & 301- English Core), wherein you were found indulged in Unfair Means activity and you will be permitted to appear in the examination next year i.e. 2026 subject to meeting of other eligibility criterias under failure category. To which, the petitioner challenged by filing this Writ Petition praying for quashing the Annexure-6 and to publish his result taking various grounds. 4. As per the writ petition of the petitioner, though, the result of almost all candidates of the same centre has been published, except few like the petitioner and the result of the petitioner has been cancelled by the Opp. Parties clandestinely taking a discriminating attitude towards him (petitioner), for which, the above memorandum dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure-6), i.e. the cancellation of the entire result of the petitioner alleging malpractice in two subjects i.e. Chemistry and English Core on the ground of giving similar answers in most of the questions along with MCQs with adjacent students of that centre cannot be sustainable under law. WP(C) No.31708 of 2025 5. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel Mr. T. Pattanayak for the Opp. Parties. 6. As per the rival submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides on the basis of the writ petition, the crux of this writ petition is that, “whether the impugned memorandum dated 08.10.2025 Annexure-6 issued by the C.B.S.E. (Opp. Party No.3) regarding the cancellation of the result of Senior School Certificate Examination, 2025 (Class-XII) of the petitioner alleging him indulgence in adopting unfair means during examination in two subjects i.e. Chemistry & English giving similar answers in some questions thereof with other students in the same centre is sustainable under law?” 7. It is the undisputed case of the parties that, “neither the centre, in which the petitioner was appearing examination was scratched on the ground of mal practice nor there was any report from the principal, centre superintendent, WP(C) No.31708 of 2025 invigilators or any flying squad about any mal practice by any students including the petitioner in the said centre or any incriminating material was found from the possession of the petitioner or from the examination hall. The result of Senior School Certificate Examination, 2025 (Class-XII) of the said centre, in which, the petitioner was appearing has not been cancelled except the petitioner along with some other few students, but the result of all other students were duly published. Much after the evaluation of the answer sheets of the petitioner, the final result of the petitioner was cancelled stating about the similarity in answers in some multiple choice questions in Chemistry and English subjects with other students of that centre. As per the report of the UFM Sub-Committee of the CBSE, as the petitioner could not answer some of the questions put to him during enquiry by the members of that UFM Sub-Committee, then, on application of Rule 36.2 (vi) & (viii) of the examination Bye-Laws of the CBSE, his result of 2025 has been cancelled.” 8. When the CBSE (Opp. Party No.1) published the final result of all the students of the same examination centre except the petitioner and some other few students forgiving/condoning the alleged negligent acts of their agents i.e. principals, centre superintendents and invigilators of the said centre in conducting the examination, then, at this juncture, the Opp. Party Nos.1 and 2 should not have cancelled the result of the petitioner alleging adoption of WP(C) No.31708 of 2025 malpractice against him in respect of two subject as indicated in Annexure-6 on the basis of inferences, surmises and conjectures without any direct evidence/material. So, the above conduct of the Opp. Party Nos.1 and 2 i.e. the adoption of pick and choose method in publishing the final result of all the students except the petitioner along with some other few students without any direct evidence or material is not free from discrimination, which is ultimately affecting the right to equality of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950. When there is no authentic/concrete legal proof before the UFM Sub-Committee to reach in a definite conclusion that, the petitioner had adopted malpractice during examination in respect of some answers in two subjects indicated in Annexure-6, then, at this juncture, the cancellation of the result of the petitioner as per Annexure-6 on the basis of asking some questions to the petitioner during enquiry by UFM Sub-Committee Members cannot be sustainable under law. Because, the aforesaid decision of the Members of the WP(C) No.31708 of 2025 UFM-Sub-Committee is on presumption, conjunctures and surmises without any legal basis. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions: (A) In a case between Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack Vs. Gayatri Hota and Others reported in 2001 (I) OLR 398 that, malpractice in examination and cancellation of results—Results of some examinees were withheld for taking recourse of malpractice in examination—Out of them some were exonerated and the result of the petitioners were cancelled as decided by the examination committee—Neither the centre superintendent nor or from any other quarter, there was complaint of malpractice. There was possibility of some similarity in answers as the questions were objective in nature and those were short questions. On the basis of suspicion, a positive decision cannot be arrived at. (B) In a case between Rajesh Kumar and Another Vs. The Institute of Engineers (India) decided in Civil Appeal No.5057 of 1997 (SC) on 25.07.1997 that, results of some candidates withheld for adopting unfair means and malpractices in the examinations. Explanations of examinees not accepted-Results of the said examinees cancelled-Suit by two of the said examinees before Civil Court-When the matter came before the High Court, it directed the Institute to redecide the matter-This time the Institute adopted a new technique to test the ability of the examinees and decided the matter against them-Held, the orders of the Institute in cancelling the results of the appellants' examinations and disqualifying them for two succeeding examinations were in access of jurisdiction and are quashed. The Institute WP(C) No.31708 of 2025 should declare the result of the examinees forthwith. (C) In a case between Chairman, J & K State Board of Education Vrs. Feyaz Ahmed Malik & Others reported in AIR 2000 SC 1039 that, matters concerning campus discipline of educational institutions and conduct of examinations, the duty is primarily vested in the authorities in-charge of the institution, and in such matters Court should not try to substitute its own views in place of the concerned authorities nor thrust its views on them. (D) In a case between Harish Chandra Tewari & others Vs. The Board of H.S. & Another reported in AIR 1981 (All.) 144 that, the Hon’ble Division Bench did not accept the charge of copying solely on the ground that, the answers of the true translation given by the examinees remarkably tallied with one another and also held that, similarity in some of the answers in the two answer books in question was not proper, there being no direct evidence that, any one observed the petitioner using unfair means during the course of the examination. Cancellation of result quashed. (E) In the cases between Basanta Kumar Pradhan & Others Vs. State of Orissa & Others reported in 2011 (1) OJR 868 that, there was allegation of malpractice—which was challenged before the High Court—Held, the examination committee should have sufficient materials to come to a conclusion that, there was malpractice and it cannot base their decisions on presumption, conjectures and surmises, as no incriminating materials were found from the possession of any particular student nor were found from the examination halls as would been from the report of the flying squad. Held, the decisions of the Examination WP(C) No.31708 of 2025 Committee to award ‘00’ marks to the petitioner in History Paper-1 of Higher Secondary +2 Examination, 2009 cannot be sustained. (Para Nos.5 to 7) 9. Here in this matter at hand, when the result of the examination of all the students of the same centre, in which the petitioner had appeared has already been published in due time, but when the result of the petitioner along with some other few students has been cancelled on the ground of his indulgence in malpractice in some questions in two subjects during examination alleging similar answers with other students and when neither the principal nor the centre superintendent or the invigilators of the examination centre had alleged any allegation regarding adoption of any malpractice by the petitioner during examination and when as per law, the conduct of examinations is primarily vested in the authorities in charge of the institution at the time of conducting examination and when there was no allegation regarding the adoption of any malpractice by the petitioner during examination by the in-charge of the examination centre, who was vested with all powers and authorities to conduct the examination and when the result of the petitioner WP(C) No.31708 of 2025 has been cancelled due to giving incorrect answers in some questions of the members of the UFM Sub-Committee, then, at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the cancellation of result of the Senior School Certificate Examination (Class-XII), 2025 of the petitioner on the basis of inference, presumptions, conjectures and surmises without any direct evidence or material is not sustainable under law. Therefore, there is justification under law for making interference with the impugned memorandum dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure-6) issued by the Under Secretary (Confidential), Central Board of Secondary Education, Regional Office, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.3) through this writ petition filed by the petitioner. For which, the Annexure-6 is liable to be quashed. 10. As such, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same is to be allowed. The impugned memorandum dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure-6) issued by the Opp. Party No.3 is quashed. WP(C) No.31708 of 2025 11. All the Opp. Parties are jointly and severally directed to publish the result of the Senior School Certificate Examination (Class-XII) of the petitioner 2025 within a week from the date of this Judgment and to communicate the result of the petitioner as well as its consequential certificates and mark sheets as per the rules immediately after publication of his result. 12. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally. (ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 20 .03. 2026// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer