THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 8896 OF 2007 Dated 6th July, 2010 Between: M.Pandaiah …Petitioner And Osmania University …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri M.Satyanarayana Goud Counsel for the respondents: Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee The Court made the following ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner sought for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in not permitting him to write the 2nd semester examinations of the IV-Year Engineering Course commencing from 24.04.2007 as per orders dated 10.11.2006 of this Court in WPMP No.29711 of 2006 in W.P.No.23328 of 2006 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to direct the respondent to declare the result of the 1st semester examinations of the IV-Year Engineering Course. The petitioner is an Engineering Student, who has joined the Course in the academic year 1997-98. In view of the backlogs, he could not complete the course within the prescribed eight years’ period. When the petitioner was not given admission to III-Year, he filed W.P. No.18920 of 2004, wherein this Court directed the University to give admission to the petitioner in the III-Year provided he does not have backlogs. In pursuance of the directions given by this Court, the petitioner was permitted to pursue his III-Year course. When he was not permitted to appear for the classes of the 1st semester of the IV- Year, he filed another writ petition, namely; W.P.No.16868 of 2005. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by directing the University to pass an appropriate order on petitioner’s representation dated 02.08.2005. In compliance with the said direction, the petitioner’s representation was disposed of by stating that the petitioner’s request for promotion without clearing backlogs cannot be considered as per the Rules of the University. Again the petitioner filed W.P.No.23328 of 2006 to direct the respondent to permit him to appear for the 1st and 2nd semester examinations of the IV-Year. In the said writ petition, this Court granted an interim order on 10.11.2006 directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to appear for the 1st semester examinations of the IV-Year Engineering Course. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared for the 1st semester examinations of the IV-Year. But the respondent has not declared the result of the said examination and also did not permit the petitioner to write the 2nd semester examinations of the IV-Year. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. On the strength of interim order dated 26.04.2007, granted by this Court in this writ petition, the petitioner has appeared for the 2nd semester examinations of the IV-Year and his results were not declared in view of the condition imposed by this Court in the said interim order. In the counter-affidavit, it is, inter alia, stated that as per the University Regulations, a student has to complete the course of study within eight years and that the petitioner having joined the course during the academic year 1997-98 should have completed the same by 2004-2005 and that admittedly having not completed the course, the petitioner is not entitled to pursue the course and appear for the examinations. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Circular No.87/M/503/Acad/04 dated 17.02.2004 and contended that by the said Circular, the University has extended two more years to enable the students to complete the Course of study and write the examinations. The said Circular has been placed before the Court by the learned Standing Counsel. I have carefully perused the said Circular, which would go to show that the Standing Committee of the Academic Senate, at its meeting held on 13.02.2004, has decided that such of those students who have completed the course of study within the prescribed time limit of double the duration of the course be granted special chances to clear the backlog papers if any by paying special examination fee of Rs.1,000/- per paper in addition to the normal examination fees within next two years immediately after the prescribed period of study. In my opinion, this Circular does not come to the help of the petitioner for the reason that the extension of two years’ period is available to enable the students, who have completed the course of study within the prescribed duration of 8 years, only for clearing the backlogs, if any remaining, and not to the students like the petitioner, who could not complete the course of study within the period of eight years. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of this Circular. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, pleaded that as the petitioner has already been permitted to write the examinations under the interim orders of this Court and that he having appeared for the examinations, the equity requires that the respondent declares the results. I am afraid, I cannot accept this contention. While exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot issue a writ to the State or any statutory authority to act contrary to law. As the petitioner failed to complete the course of study within the specified 8 years’ period, the University cannot be compelled to permit him to appear for the examinations and confer degree contrary to the Regulations and Circulars governing the field. Therefore, on the vague plea of equities, this Court cannot direct the respondents to violate law. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 6th July, 2010 vrn