IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12752 of 2008 Between: Bommisetti Rakesh, S/o. Bommisetti Mohan rao, Being Minor Re by his Father and Natual Guardian, Bommisetti Mohan Rao,S/o. Suryanarayana, aged 42 years, R/o. Kanchikacherla, Kanchikacherla Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Rajiv Gandhi University, Nuzvid, Krishna District, Rep by its Registrar. 2 The District Educational Officer, Krishna District Machilipatnam. 3 The Mandal Educational Officer, Kanchikacherla, Krishna District. 4 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, 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 a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the Respondents in not selecting the petitioner herein for Triple I.T. Course in the 1st Respondent University in spite of securing 556 marks out of 600 marks as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents herein to select the petitioner herein for the said course in accordance with the marks secured by the petitioners herein. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.V.SESHA SAI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : O R D E R:- This writ petition has been ﬁled by Bommisetti Rakesh assailing the action of the respondents in not selecting him for IIIT Course in the 1st respondent-Rajiv Gandhi University. The petitioner studied X Class in Vijayarani English Medium School, Kanchikacherla and secured 556 marks out of 600 and stood 2nd in the Kanchikacherla Mandal as well as in Vijayarani English Medium School. His grievance is that though he secured highest marks, his name does not ﬁnd place in the selected list. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 19.6.2008 and an interim order came to be passed in W.P.M.P.No.16448 of 2008 directing the petitioner to submit a representation to the Governing Council of the 1st respondent-University for considering his name being included in the provisional selected list. In pursuance of the interim direction, the Governing Council of the 1st respondent considered the representation and communicated to the petitioner that he secured only 17 grade points whereas Chiluka Samskruti from the same school secured 22 grade points. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner secured 556 marks out of 600 marks and therefore, non- inclusion of his name in the selected list is arbitrary and illegal. The learned Advocate General submits that the grade points have been calculated as per the prospectus issued by the 1st respondent-University. The petitioner scored 17 grade points and whereas Chiluka Samskruti scored 22 grade points. The particulars of the grade points scored by the petitioner and Chiluka Samskruti are communicated to the petitioner. The grade points scored by the petitioner and Chiluka Samskruti are noted in the communication and they are as follows: “Rakesh is the top student in only two subjects with the grade points score of 17 as shown in the scores below: Subjects L1 L2 L3 MA SC SO TOT Marks 92 91 85 96 98 94 556 Grade points 3 4 2 1 4 3 17 For example, Chiluka Samskruti from the same school is the top student in four subjects with grade points score of 22 Subjects L1 L2 L3 MA SC SO TOT Marks 95 91 92 100 95 95 568 Grade points 4 4 4 4 3 3 22 In view of the above referred communication sent by the 1st respondent to the petitioner, the contention of the petitioner that he is the local best student in the school where he studied cannot be accepted. Hence, there are no merits in this writ petition and is hereby dismissed. No costs. _________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 27th August, 2008 bcj