IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17698 of 2008 Between: 1 Ch.Kannam Naidu, H.No.040525006 S/o.Krushnamma R/o.Bodapanapalli Village, Vizianagaram District. 2 M.Bhaskar Rao, H.No.040525019 S/o.Narayana R/o.Innayyapeta, Srikakulam District. 3 R.Rama Kumari H.No.040525020 D/o.Appalaswamy Naidu R/o.Pedapenki Village, Balijapadu Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 4 A.Suresh, H.No.040525021 S/o.A.Maheswara Rao R/o.Naidupet, Srikakulam town and district. 5 R.Raja Rao, H.No.040525023 S/o.A.Maheswara Rao R/o.Naidupet, Srikakulam town and district. 6 D.Someswara Rao, H.No.040525026 S/o.Mukhalingam R/o.Balgam Village, Mandasa Mandal, Srikakulam district. 7 R.Manikya Jyothi, H.No.040525028 D/o.Krishna Murthy R/o.Seetharampuram, Narasapur Mandal, W.G. District. 8 P.Mohan Ravi, H.No.040525033 S/o.K.R.Ravi R/o.3-145, Thota Street, Krishna District. 9 J.Jasmine, H.No.040525075 D/o.J.Charles R/o.D.No.9-173/1, Ramnagar, Gannavaram, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Registrar. 2 St.Marks College of Education, Mandasa, Srikakulam District, rep. by its Correspondent. 3 The Convenor, EDCET-2004, Hyderabad. 4 The Secretary, State Council of Higher Education, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not announcing the results of main B.Ed., examination held on 10.12.2007 and not permitting them to take up Practical Examinations as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct them to allow the Petitioners to take up practical examination scheduled to be held from 18.8.2008 and announce the results as per schedule and pass such other or further orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MEHERCHAND NOORI Counsel for the Respondent No.: (SC FOR AU)M.V.RAJA RAAM The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 17698 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who are nine in number with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not announcing the results of main B.Ed., examination held on 10-12-2007 and not permitting them to appear in practical examinations as illegal and arbitrary. 2. This is second round of litigation. In the earlier round of litigation the petitioners approached this Court assailing the action of the Registrar, Controller of Examinations, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam in not issuing hall tickets and not allowing them to write B.Ed., examination scheduled on 1-3-2006, by filing W.P.No.3888 of 2007. When the learned Single Judge refused to grant interim order, they filed W.A.No.245 of 2006. A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Writ Appeal directing the management of the college to return the total fee collected from the writ petitioners with interest at 9%. The relevant portion of the Writ Appeal order reads as hereunder. “Since the appellant has failed to produce the documents which have direct bearing on the issue of regularity of the procedure adopted for making admissions, it is not possible for the Court to entertain its prayer for issuance of an interim direction to the University to allow the candidates to take the examinations and that too at this belated stage, when at least half of the examinations are over. Any direction by the Court at this state would jeopardize the examinations and will compound the miseries of the students. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal is dismissed. While dismissing the appeal in the manner indicated above, we direct the University to immediately take corrective measures and ensure that the affiliated colleges, which make admissions in violation of the rules and policies, are made to realize their duty to act in accordance with law. IF the university finds that the affiliated colleges do not adhere to the statutory rules and norms, then it must take steps for withdrawal or cancellation of the affiliation. Principal Secretary, College Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh is also directed to took into the matter and ensure that those students who have been admitted by either group of the management of the college in violation of the instructions issued by Convener, Ed.CET, 2004 vide letter dated August, 22,2005 are compensated by the concerned group of management of the college by return of total fee together with interest at the rate of 9%. This unusual direction has been given by us with the hope that in future the managements of private, aided and un-aided colleges may not be able to play with the careers of the students”. 3. Subsequently, writ petition filed by the petitioners being W.P.No. 3888 of 2008 along with a batch of writ petitions came to be dismissed on 6-3-2007. It appears one of the rival groups of St. Mark’s College of Education filed review petition in the Writ Appeal and the review petition also ended in dismissal. While the review petition was pending before a Division Bench, it appears the University permitted the petitioners herein to write the B.Ed. Examination held in December, 2007. Since the University has not declared the results, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition. 4. When the writ petition came up for admission Sri M.V. Raja Ram, learned standing counsel of the Andhra University received notice on behalf of Andhra University-1st respondent. Sri K.Rathanga Phani Reddy, the learned counsel received notice on behalf of Respondent No.3 and Sri R. Sudesh Anand learned counsel received notice on behalf of Respondent No.4. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1,3 and 4. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that 1st respondent having permitted the petitioners to write the examinations is not justified in withholding the results. 7. Sri M.V. Raja Ram, learned standing counsel for Respondent No.1 submits submits that while review petition is pending, 1st respondent permitted the petitioners to write the examination on the oral direction of this Court and subsequently, the review petition itself ended in dismissal and therefore the question of declaring the results does not arise. 8. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the counsel for parties. A Division Bench of this Court categorically held that admission of the petitioners in the institution is in violation of the instructions issued by the Convener Ed-CET Examinations and therefore, directed the management of the college to return the fee paid by the petitioners with interest. It means the admission of the petitioners in the St. Mark’s Institution is not approved. Such is the situation, the question of 1st respondent declaring the results of the petitioners who claimed to have appeared for the examination pending the review in Writ Appeal No. 245 of 2006 does not arise. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 14th August, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 17698 OF 2008 14th August, 2008.