*** vs Central Board Of Secondary Education
2026 Latest Caselaw 1875 Ori

Orissa High Court

*** vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 26 February, 2026

                 ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

                   WP(C) No.34046 of 2025

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
                            India.



                              ***

Akash Chhatar & Others

... Petitioners.

-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 Petitioners : 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

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 petitioners

praying for quashing the impugned memorandum dated

08.10.2025 (Annexure-6 series) issued by the Under Secretary

(Confidential), Central Board of Secondary Education,

Regional Office, Bhubaneswar and for issuance of necessary

directions to the Opp. Parties to publish the result of the

petitioners, in respect of their 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

petitioners.

2. The case of the petitioners is that, they (petitioners) were

the regular students of Class-XII of Padampur Public School

in the District of Bargarh. They (petitioners) appeared their

Senior School Certificate Examination, 2025 (Class-XII) under

the Central Board of Secondary Education in Odisha Adarsha

Vidyalaya, Bandupali as the regular students on the basis of

the admit cards vide Annexure-2 series issued to them by the

CBSE (Opp. Party No.1). Though, in the said examination,

they (petitioners) had done extremely well, but their results in

the website were published on dated 13.05.2025 reflecting as

R.L., (Result Later) category. The Principal, Padampur Public

School, Padampur intimated them (petitioners) to the official

order dated 26.05.2025 issued by the Opp. Party No.2

(Regional Director, Central Board of Secondary Education,

Regional Office, Bhubaneswar) stating that, the petitioners

were found involved in unfair practice giving similar answers

in some subjects with other students in the same centre, for

which, their entire result of 2025 has been cancelled.

To which, the petitioners challenged the same by filing

WPC No.16032 of 2025 praying for quashing the cancellation

of their results and to direct the Opp. Parties to publish their

results.

The said Writ Petition vide WPC No.16032 of 2025 of the

petitioners were decided analogously with other writ petitions

by this Court and the Judgment thereof was passed on dated

15.09.2025 as per Annexure-3, 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 petitioners 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.16032 of 2025 along with other

WPCs vide Annexure-3 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 petitioners asking them 18 questions each in the form of

yes or no such as i) whether he/she has adopted unfair

means or not, ii) what is the name of his/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.

3. Thereafter, a copy of the memorandum dated 08.10.2025

vide Annexure-6 series were 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 petitioners informing them that:

They 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, their results of Main Examination 2025 are

hereby cancelled in the subject(s) in respect of which, they were

found indulged in Unfair Means and they 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 petitioners, though, the

result of almost all candidates of the same centre has been

published, except few like the petitioners and their result has

been cancelled by the Opp. Parties clandestinely taking a

discriminating attitude towards them (petitioners), for which,

the above memorandum dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure-6 series),

i.e. the cancellation of their entire result alleging malpractice

in some subjects on the ground of giving similar answers with

their adjacent students in that centre cannot be sustainable

under law.

Therefore, the petitioners challenged the said Annexure-

6 series 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 petitioners

relating to the adoption of any malpractice by them and when

neither the Principal, nor the centre superintendent or the

invigilators of that centre have made any allegation against

the petitioners regarding the adoption of any malpractice and

when the answers in the subjects in respect of the allegation

of malpractice has been alleged 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 petitioners in some limited

subjects reflected in Annexure-6 series with other students

cannot be the basis for terming them (petitioners) that, they

had adopted malpractice during examination. For which, the

above alleged allegations against the petitioners being

baseless, the same are liable to be quashed.

5. The Opp. Party Nos.1 and 2 adopted their counter filed

in the similar nature of Writ Petition vide WP(C)

No.31318/2025 as their counter in this Writ Petition and

challenged the Writ Petition of the petitioners 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 petitioners is to be dismissed against them (Opp. Parties)."

6. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the

petitioners 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 petitioners 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-6 series issued by the C.B.S.E. regarding the cancellation of the results of Senior School Certificate Examination, 2025 (Class-XII) of the petitioners alleging their indulgence in adopting unfair means during examination in some limited subjects indicated in Annexure-6 Series given 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 petitioners were 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 petitioners in the said centre or any incriminating material was found from the possession of the petitioners or from the examination hall.

The result of Senior School Certificate Examination, 2025 (Class-XII) of the said centre, in which, the petitioners were appearing has not been cancelled except the petitioners 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 petitioners, the final result of the petitioners has been cancelled on the ground that, the petitioners were found involved in the use of suspected unfair practice, as there are similarity of answers in some questions and mistakes committed by the students..

As per the report of the UFM Sub-Committee of the CBSE, as the petitioners could not answer some of the questions put to them 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, their results of 2025 have been cancelled."

10. It is the specific/definite plea of the Opp. Party Nos.1

and 2 in Para No.9 of their counter which was filed in WPC

No.31318 of 2025 and which was adopted in this writ petition

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

Sub-Committee, they did not cooperate the UFM Sub-Committee."

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 petitioners 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 petitioners alleging adoption of malpractice

against them in respect of some subjects by each petitioners

indicated in Annexure-6 Series 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 petitioners 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 petitioners had adopted malpractice during examination

in respect of some answers in some limited subjects indicated

in Annexure-6 series, then, at this juncture, the cancellation

of the result of the petitioners as per Annexure-6 series on the

basis of asking some questions to the petitioners 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 petitioners had appeared has already been published in

due time, but when the result of the petitioners along with

some other few students have been cancelled on the ground of

their indulgence in malpractice in some questions in respect

of some limited subjects indicated in Annexure-6 series 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

petitioners 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 petitioners 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 results of the petitioners have 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 petitioners 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 series) issued by the Under Secretary

(Confidential), Central Board of Secondary Education,

Regional Office, Bhubaneswar through this writ petition filed

by the petitioners. For which, the Annexure-6 series are liable

to be quashed.

14. As such, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the

petitioners. The same is to be allowed.

The impugned memorandum dated 08.10.2025

(Annexure-6 series) issued by the Under Secretary

(Confidential), Central Board of Secondary Education,

Regional Office, Bhubaneswar are 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 petitioners 2025 within a week

from the date of this Judgment and to communicate the result

of the petitioners as well as its consequential certificates and

mark sheets as per the rules immediately after publication of

their results.

16. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is

disposed of finally.

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 26 .02. 2026// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer