JUDGMENT
V.M. Sahai, J.
1. The petitioner passed High School in 1989, in first division. She appeared in intermediate examination with roll
number 007989 as a regular student from Jawahar Inter College, Sheetalpur. Agra in 1991. Her result was withheld under WB category. But provisional marks-sheet was issued to her. The petitioner passed her B. A. in 1994 from degree college affiliated to Agra University as a regular student. She passed her M. A. examination in 1997 from Agra University, She was married in Rajasthan where she applied to be appointed as teacher. She produced her entire testimonials including intermediate Examination mark-sheet of 1991. On 30.9.1999. she approached the Principal of the institution and requested him that she be supplied the certificate of Intermediate Examination, 1991. The Principal refused and asked the petitioner to approach the respondents. On 2.8.1999 the petitioner made a representation in the office of respondent No. 1. On same day. she was served with impugned order informing her that her result has been cancelled. The order dated 2.8.1999 has been challenged by the petitioner by means of the present writ petition.
2. I have heard Sri M. D. Singh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. K. Rai, brief holder for the State of U. P. appearing for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the order was arbitrary as the result of the petitioner was withheld under WB category which under the rules means withholding for suspicion and in absence of any proof that the petitioner was guilty of using unfair means, the order cannot be maintained. He further urged that the respondents in passing the order after eight years without affording any opportunity to petitioner were guilty of violating principles of natural justice. It is urged that in any case the provisional certificate having been issued and no steps having been taken for eight years the petitioner completed her post graduation, thereafter, the circumstances have changed and the equity prevents them from cancelling the examination now.
The learned standing counsel supported the order. He urged that provisional mark-sheet was issued as the High Court had passed a general order in 1983 to Issue provisional marks-sheet in all cases of unfair means.
4. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that the petitioner was found involved in mass copying, therefore, her result was cancelled. And the decision of the Disposal Committee was sent to the principal. It was published in the newspaper also. The allegations are denied in the rejoinder-affidavit.
5. If the allegation in the counter-affidavit would have been correct, there was no question of cancelling her examination in 1999, The learned standing counsel could not produce any material to substantiate the allegations made In the counter-affidavit.
6. The result of the petitioner was withheld in WB category by the respondents. From the document produced by the petitioner :
^^ifj”kn dh gkbZ Ldwy rFkk b.VjehfM,V
ijh{kk ds fy, fofHkUu ladsr fpUgksa dk fooj.k ftlds vUrxZr ijh{kkQy jksds x;s
gSaA
It is clear that WB category relates to cases of suspicion of using unfair means and not of the candidates who are found copying at the spot as alleged in the counter-affidavit. The respondents themselves were not sure whether the candidate indulged in using unfair means or not, that is why the respondents issued provisional marks-sheet to the petitioner. Learned standing counsel staled that in 1983 there were some general directions of the High Court for issuing marks-sheet to the candidates whose results had been withheld but on such judgment has been brought on record except a bald statement made in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit. The counter-affidavit also silent as to what they were doing for the last 8 years. They did not disclose any reason for such inordinate delay, in arriving at a conclusion as to whether the petitioner was guilty of
using unfair means or not. It appears that the respondents woke up only after the petitioner approached the respondents for issuance of the certificate and on the same date, the respondents cancelled the intermediate result of the petitioner that too without assigning any reason for cancellation of the result of the petitioner. The petitioner in the meantime passed B. A., M. A. and B. Ed. examinations and if her result of intermediate examination is cancelled, the petitioner would be seriously prejudiced.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decision of this Court in Ashok Kumar Srivastava v. Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education at Allahabad and another, 1985 UPLBEC 76, Dr. Anil Kumar Agrawal v. Director of Medical Education and Training. U. P. Lucknow and others, 1987 UPLBEC 547 and Chhatrapal u. Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U. P., Allahabad 1991 (1) UPLBEC. 388. In all these decisions, the Court has taken equitable view to prevent injustice to a candidate who has as a consequence of declaration of result pursued higher studies successfully. In this case provisional marks-sheet having been supplied and the authorities having remained silent for eight years, the equity is in her favour.
8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 2.8.99, passed by respondent Annexure-5 to this petition is quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent to declare the result of the petitioner of Intermediate Examination 1991 and issue a fresh marks-sheet and certificate of Intermediate Examination of 1991 to the petitioner. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the respondent within month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.
9. The parties shall bear their own costs.