AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
In view of the order dated 29.2.2000 of this Court the respondents produced the answer books of the petitioner as also the answer books of the other student from which the matter was alleged to be copied by the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel also admits that the two answer books produced do not tally with each other. In the answers 1 also do not find that there is anything from which copying is presumed as in no way petitioner''s answers are tallying with the answer from which the petitioner is said to have copied.
No counter-affidavit has been filed although time was granted. As the records have already been produced, the learned Standing Counsel agrees to final disposal of the writ petition at this stage.
As it appears that there is no basis for holding the petitioner responsible for copying as appears from the records produced before the Court, the cancellation of result of the petitioner on the ground of mass copying, as has been stated in the writ petition, having not been denied by the respondents by filing a Counter-affidavit, is hereby quashed. The respondents are hereby directed to declare the result of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.