*** vs Central Board Of Secondary Education
2026 Latest Caselaw 2703 Ori

Orissa High Court

*** vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 20 March, 2026

                 ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

                   WP(C) No.37309 of 2026

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



                             ***

Sri Dibyansh Sahu (minor) represented through his father guardian Sri Manoj Kumar Sahu & 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 : 17.03.2026 :: 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-4) 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 petitioners, in respect of their Secondary

Examination, 2025 (Class-X) 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-X of Padampur Public School in

the District of Bargarh. They (petitioners) appeared their

Secondary Examination, 2025 (Class-X) 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-1 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 UFM

(Unfair Means) without awarding any mark in their any paper.

Subsequently, the Principal, Padampur Public School,

Padampur provided them 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, their examination papers in the subjects i.e.

Mathematics Standard (Subject Code: 041), Science (Subject

Code:086) and English Language and Literature (Subject Code:

184) have been cancelled for adoption of unfair means (UFM),

because their answers in some questions in the said subjects

are similar with their adjacent students, for which, their result

of 2025 in their all subjects has been cancelled.

To which, the petitioners challenged by filing WPC

No.16045 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.16045 of 2025 of the

petitioners was decided analogously with other writ petitions

of other students of Class X 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.16045 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 in respect of some questions, which were not

related with examination subject in order to answer Yes or No.

3. Thereafter, a copy of the memorandum dated 08.10.2025

vide Annexure-4 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. For Which, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition praying

for quashing the above Annexure-4 taking various grounds.

5. 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-4 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.

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

petitioners and learned counsel Mr. T. Pattanayak for the Opp.

Party Nos.1 & 2.

7. As per the rival submissions of the learned counsels of

both of the sides, the crux of this writ petition is that,

"whether the impugned memorandum dated

08.10.2025 Annexure-4 series issued by the C.B.S.E.

(Opp. Party No.3) regarding the cancellation of the

results of Secondary Examination, 2025 (Class-X) of the

petitioners alleging their indulgence in adopting unfair

means during examination in some of the subjects

indicated in Annexure-4 series giving similar answers in

some questions with other students in the same centre is

sustainable under law?"

8. 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 Secondary Examination, 2025 (Class-X) 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 were published reflecting as UFM (Unfair Means) and subsequently, their results were cancelled stating about the similarity in answers in some multiple choice questions in some subjects of the petitioners indicated in Annexure-4 series.

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."

9. 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, on the

basis of inferences, surmises and conjectures without any

direct evidence/material adopting pick and choose adopting

discriminatory attitude, then, the above conduct of the Opp.

Party Nos.1 and 2 is ultimately affecting the right to equality

of the petitioners 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 two to three subjects indicated

in Annexure-4 series, then, at this juncture, the cancellation

of the result of the petitioners as per Annexure-4 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)

10. 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 two to

three subjects indicated in Annexure-4 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 Secondary Examination (Class-X), 2025 of the petitioners

on the basis of inference, presumptions, conjectures and

surmises without any direct evidence or material is not

sustainable under law.

11. Therefore, there is justification under law for making

interference with the impugned memorandum dated

08.10.2025 (Annexure-4 series) 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 petitioners. For which, the Annexure-

4 series are liable to be quashed.

12. 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-4 series) issued by the Opp. Party No.3 are

quashed.

13. All the Opp. Parties are jointly and severally directed to

publish the result of the Secondary Examination (Class-X) 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.

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

disposed of finally.

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 20 .02. 2026// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer