THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY DATED: 14-09-2005 WRIT PETITION No.19987 of 2005 Between: M.Ananthagiri . . .Petitioner And The Govt. of A.P. and others . . .Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19987 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Draughtsman in the Irrigation and Command Area Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. With a view to improve his chances of promotion to the higher post, he joined the diploma course in Civil Engineering way back in the year 1985. He took the examination up to 1987 and he cleared six out of ten subjects. He has a backlog of four subjects. He contends that he appeared for the remaining four subjects in the year 1998. His grievance is that the respondents have not declared his results, though several years have elapsed, and he seeks appropriate directions in this regard. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the second and third respondents. The petitioner joined the three-year diploma course in Civil Engineering as an in-service candidate. According to the rules in vogue, the scheme of the course is to be changed once in six years and the candidates, who have joined in the course, have to complete it within a period, double the duration of the course, i.e. six years. Even according to the petitioner, he did not pass in four subjects up to the year 1998. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Principal of the college permitted the petitioner to appear in four subjects pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Government and the Board. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the Principal deviated from the norms and rules and the petitioner was not entitled to take examination at that length of time. Even assuming that the appearance of the petitioner in the remaining four subjects in the year 1998 is not tainted with any illegality, the fact remains that seven years have elapsed. Therefore, it is not permissible in law, to direct the respondents to declare the results of that examination. Such a direction amounts to permitting the petitioner herein, to complete the diploma course in two decades. Apart from being abnormal, it would reduce the grant of the diploma to ridiculous levels. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any basis to grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. _________________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 14th SEPTEMBER, 2005. kvni