[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
*** vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 26 February, 2026
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.31318 of 2025
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
Miss. Barsha Ranee Behera (minor) represented through her
father guardian, Sri Shravan Kumar Behera.
... 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. D.P. Nanda, Senior Advocate.
Mr. T. Pattanayak, Adv.
(For the CBSE)
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing : 11.02.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 26.02.2026
J UD G M E N T
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-10) 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 her Senior School
Certificate Examination (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, she petitioner was a
regular student of Class-XII of Odisha Adarsha Vidyalaya,
Bandupali in the District of Bargarh. She (petitioner) appeared
her Senior School Certificate Examination, 2025 (Class-XII)
under the Central Board of Secondary Education in Padampur
Public School Centre as a regular student on the basis of the
admit card vide Annexure-1 issued to her by the CBSE (Opp.
Party No.1). Though, in the said examination, she petitioner
had done extremely well, but her result in the website was
published on dated 13.05.2025 in Annexure-2 reflecting as
R.L., (Result Later, Your result is under preparation and it will
be declared soon). Subsequent thereto, the mark Statement-
cum-Certificate of the petitioner was communicated to her as
per Annexure-3 through Adarsha Vidyalaya, Bandupali
without awarding any mark to her in any subject indicating
that, UNM (Unfair Means). So, she (petitioner) sought for
information from the Odisha Adarsha Vidyalaya, Bandupali
under The Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding the cause
of withholding her result. In response to the same, the
Principal Odisha Adarsha Vidyalaya, Bandupali wrote a letter
on dated 31.05.2025 to the Opp. Party No.2 (Regional Director,
Central Board of Secondary Education, Regional Office,
Bhubaneswar). The Opp. Party No.2 answered to the same
through Annexure-4 series stating that, as the results 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
most of her answers in Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) in
Chemistry subjects and the answers in question Nos.12 & 13
in English Subject were similar with several other adjacent
students of the centre, therefore, as per Paragraph No.5(e) of
the Annexure-4 of their Bye-Laws, the result of the petitioner
in all subjects have been cancelled.
To which, the petitioner challenged by filing WPC
No.16697/2025 praying for quashing the cancellation of her
result and to direct the Opp. Parties to publish her result. The
said Writ Petition vide WPC No.16697/2025 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-7, 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.16697/2025 along with other
WPCs vide Annexure-7 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
the petitioner asking her 18 questions in the form of yes or no
such as i) whether she has adopted unfair means or not, ii)
what is the name of her 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 Annexure10 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 her 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 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.
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 her
(petitioner), for which, the above memorandum dated
08.10.2025 (Annexure-10), i.e. the cancellation of the entire
result of the petitioner alleging malpractice in two subjects i.e.
Chemistry and English on the ground of giving similar
answers with other adjacent students in that centre cannot be
sustainable under law.
Therefore, the petitioner challenged the said Annexure-
10 by filing this Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India on the ground that,
when the results of other students of the same centre
have been published by the Opp. Parties and when no
incriminating material has been seized from the petitioner
relating to the adoption of any malpractice by her and when
neither the Principal, nor the centre superintendent or the
invigilators of that centre have made any allegation against
the petitioner regarding the adoption of any malpractice and
when the answers in the question of Chemistry subject were
in Multiple Choice form and when the teachers of the same
school have taught all the students similarly in all subjects,
then, on the ground of similarity in the answers of the
petitioner in Chemistry and in two questions in English with
other students cannot be the basis for terming her (petitioner)
that, she had adopted malpractice during examination. For
which, the above alleged allegations against the petitioner
being baseless, the same are liable to be quashed.
5. The Opp. Party Nos.1 and 2 submitted their counter
challenging the Writ Petition of the petitioner taking their
stands that,
"the CCTV footages of both the Examination Centres
was sought by them for confirmation about the alleged
Unfair Means, but, the CCTV footage after 11.30 A.M. of the
examination centre were not made available in the centres,
though, all the examination centres were instructed to
install CCTV for the fairness of the examinations and
preserve CCTV recordings till two months after the result
declaration.
Although the Principals of the Examination Centres,
Centre Superintendents, Observers and few Invigilators
were called to appear before the UFM Sub-Committee during
enquiry, but there was total lack of cooperation by the said
officials. So, it is held and considered that the above
abnormalities are not possible without the active
involvement of the candidates.
As per Clause No. 36.3 (v) of the Examination Bye Laws of
the Board, the Board has the right to cancel the result of all
subjects of a student, if the Board is satisfied about the use
of unfair means in a paper or papers. Rule 36.3 (v) does not
compel cancellation of result of all candidates, the Board
has discretion to impose proportionate punishment.
In the present matter, keeping in view the findings of the
expert which showed abnormal patterns across certain
candidates; indicating possible use of UFM, the decision
taken by the Board was lawful.
Out of Total 1185 candidates in both the Centres,
885 candidates were considered having used UFM wherein
502 students allowed to appear in Supplementary
Examination 2025 and 383 students (44 candidates of
Class-X and 339 candidates of Class-XII) were allowed to
appear in the Main Examination 2026. Out of 502
candidates (who were placed to appear in Supplementary
Exam 2025 in the order), 459 candidates were declared
pass either in Main Exam 2025 or Supplementary Exam
2025.
Under the CBSE more than 46 lakh students will be
appearing in Class X and Class XII Examinations in 2026
from India and 26 countries abroad and if such activities
are left unattended and without apt punishment to all
involved, ensuring a fair conduct of examination will only
become a dream. Hence, strict action is the need of the hour.
As per Office Order dated 26.05.2025 asked to
the Odisha Adarsha Vidyalaya Sangathan to initiate
disciplinary action against the involved Principal and
invigilators of the concerned examination centres. In
response thereof, the Odisha Adarsha Vidyalaya Sangatha,
has informed that an enquiry in the matter is presently
being conducted. Copies of the Memorandum, Article of
Charges and the Memos of Evidence and List of Witnesses
of the Disciplinary Authority of the Odisha Adarsha
Vidyalaya Sangatha against erring/ delinquent officials are
ANNEXURE - D/1 Series.
The Central Board of Secondary Education
(CBSE), vide Notice dated 12.09.2025, has issued a show
cause notice to Padampur Public School, Bargarh, Odisha
about its disaffiliation.
So, for the above reasons, the writ petition filed
by the petitioner is to be dismissed against them (Opp.
Parties)."
6. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. D.P. Nanda and the
learned counsel Mr. T. Pattanayak for the Opp. Party Nos.1 &
2.
7. In support of the averments made in the Writ Petition,
the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following
decisions:
I. Board of Secondary Education, Odisha and Another Vs.
Gayatri Hota and Others:2001(I) OLR 398
II. Rajesh Kumar and Another Vs. The Institute of Engineers
(India): C.A. No.5057 of 1997 decided on 25.07.1997
III. Vanshika Yadav Vs. Union of India & Others: (2024) 9
SCC 743
8. As per the rival submissions of the learned counsels of
both the sides on the basis of the writ petition, counter and
rejoinder, the crux of this writ petition is that,
"whether the impugned memorandum dated 08.10.2025
Annexure-10 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 her
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?"
9. 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,
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 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
initially withheld in the finally published list indicating as R.L.
(Result Later, Your result is under preparation and it will be
declared soon) and subsequently her result was cancelled
stating about the similarity in answers in some multiple choice
questions in chemistry and similarity in answers in question
Nos.12 and 13 in 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
her 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, her result of 2025 has been cancelled."
10. It is the specific/definite plea of the Opp. Party Nos.1
and 2 in Para No.9 of their counter that,
"all the examination centres were instructed by the CBSE (Opp.
Party No.1) to install CCTV for the fairness of the examinations
and to preserve the CCTV recording till two months after the
declaration of the result, but the same has not been followed.
The principals of the examination centres, centre superintendents
and invigilators, those were called to appear before the UFM
11. The above pleas of the Opp. Party Nos.1 and 2 in their
counter supported with an affidavit is going to show that, the
principals of the examination centres, centre superintendents
and invigilators being the agents of the Opp. Party No.1
(CBSE), they have not acted as per the directions of their
principal i.e. Opp. Party No.1 (CBSE) for conducting the
examinations, in the manner, they were instructed to conduct.
12. 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 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 malpractice against
her in respect of two subjects i.e. Chemistry and English on
the basis of inference, 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 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 i.e. Chemistry and
English, then, at this juncture, the cancellation of the result of
the petitioner as per Annexure-10 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
UFM-Sub-Committee is on presumption, conjectures 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
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
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)
13. 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
her 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
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-10) 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-
10 is liable to be quashed.
14. 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-10) issued by the Opp. Party No.3 is quashed.
15. 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
her result.
16. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is
disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 26 .02. 2026// Rati Ranjan Nayak
Sr. Stenographer
