IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 2503 of 2009 Between: J.Abhinav Pratap S/o.J.Anjaiah R/o.V-35/1, Defence Quarters, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Higher Education Department, represented by its Vice Chairman, Board of Intermediate Education, (BIE), (Principal Secretary to Government), Hyderabad. 2 The Board of Intermediate, represented by Controllerof Examination, Vidya Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 Chaitanya Junior Kalashala, Vinay Nagar Colony, Saidabad, Santhosh Nagar, Hyderabad, represented by its Principal. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order, direction of the Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the Rc.No.227364/C-25-3/IPE, March 2008, dated 20.09.2008 for canceling the March 2008 examination and also debarring the petitioner for five subsequent examinations i.e., from I.P.A.S.E. May/June 2008 to I.P.A.S.E. May/June 2010 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and violation of Article 19 (1) g and Article -21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to declare the second year Intermediate Examinations results of the petitioner and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SHIVA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Ms. C.SINDHU KUMARI The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.2503 OF 2009 ORDER: It appears, the petitioner, an Intermediate student of the 3rd respondent College, has appeared for Intermediate First Year examination in the academic year 2006-07. Thereafter, while the petitioner was appearing for his Second Year Examinations, in the last examination of Chemistry, which was scheduled on 19.03.2008, he resorted to Malpractice and, as such, his results were withheld. While so, when the 3rd respondent College refused to receive the examination fee from the petitioner for Instant Examination, the petitioner filed W.P.No.10606 of 2008 and this Court, on 07.05.2008, granted interim direction to the respondents therein to receive the fees from the petitioner for Instant Examination and allow the petitioner to write the examination. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the said interim direction, he was allowed to pay the fees and write the examination, and thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued show cause notice, dated 21.07.2008, to him as to why his performance at the Intermediate Public Examinations, March, 2008 should not be cancelled and as to why he should not be debarred for five subsequent examinations i.e., from IPASE, May/June 2008 to IPASE, May/June 2010, for the malpractice committed by him, and the petitioner, in response to the said show cause notice, submitted his explanation on 04.08.2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that subsequent to submission of his explanation to the said show cause notice, he filed W.P.M.P.No.18164 of 2008 in W.P.No.10606 of 2008 seeking interim directions to the respondents therein to release his results of advanced supplementary examination held in the month of May-June, 2008 and this Court, by order dated 23.09.2008, granted interim directions as such, but surprisingly, the 2nd respondent, instead of declaring the results as per interim directions of this Court, without considering his explanation, passed the impugned order with an ante-date i.e., 20.09.2008 debarring him for five subsequent examinations from IPASE May/June, 2008 to IPASE May/June 2010 for the alleged malpractice. Aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned order, the petitioner filed Contempt Case being CC.No.1760 of 2008 for not complying with the order, dated 23.09.2008, in W.P.M.P.No.18164 of 2008 in W.P.No.10606 of 2008, and the same is pending. The petitioner also preferred an appeal on 15.11.2008 before the 1st respondent, against the impugned order, but so far no orders have been passed therein. Today, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has produced the relevant record to justify the impugned order, dated 20.09.2008, stating that the petitioner was, in fact, involved in malpractice and manhandled the invigilator. Having regard to the fact that the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the 1st respondent is pending consideration, without expressing any opinion on merits, I deem it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order, dated 20.09.2008, of the 2nd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA,J 12.02.2009 v v