THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.13574 of 2010 Date : 31-8-2010 Between : D.G. Krishna Babu s/o.D.Narayana Occ: student, r/o.Nellore, Nellore District. .. Petitioner And Dr.N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Represented by its Registrar, Vijayawada, Krishna District and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Smt.K.Sesharajyam Counsel for respondents : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.13574 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondents in not publishing the results of the 2nd year examinations of the petitioner held in October 2008 and in not allowing the petitioner to continue his 3rd year M.B.B.S. (Final Part-1) as illegal and discriminatory. For disposal of this Writ Petition, it is not necessary to note all the facts because the entire controversy is narrated in detail in the Division Bench Judgement of this Court in Dr.N.T.R. University of Health Sciences Vs. Mohd.Jakeer Shaik and another [1], of which I am a party. This Division Bench has considered the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Sahiti and others Vs. Chancellor, Dr.N.T.R.University of Health Scienes and others [2]. It is an admitted position that the case of the petitioner is not covered either by the said Judgment of the Supreme Court or by the Judgment of the Division Bench (2nd supra). The fact therefore remains that while the Supreme Court has permitted all those students who have passed special supplementary examinations held in December 2008 to pursue the 2nd year M.B.B.S. course, the Division Bench (2nd supra) has permitted those students who have passed the regular supplementary examinations held in February 2009. The petitioner, however, did not clear one subject i.e., Physiology in the 1st year examinations, either in December 2008 or in February 2009. Therefore, his case is not covered under either of the above two Judgments. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the Supreme Court for necessary clarification, if he so desires. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, W.P.M.P.No.17098/2010 also is disposed of as infructuous. No costs. ________________________ Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 31-8-2010 AM [1] W.A.No.1446/2009 dated 5-2-2010 [2] 2009(1) SCC 599