LAXMAN KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. B. Misra, J. Heard Sri Irshad Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for declaration of result of Intermediate Examination for the year 1991.

(2.) IT appears that the petitioner appeared in the Intermediate Examination of the year 1991 as a regular student from Uddyog Vidyalaya Inter College, Koilasha, Azamgarh and he was allotted Roll No. as 485410 for the year 1991 where the result was declared in the month of June, 1991 in which the result of the petitioner was withheld under W. B. Category (Mass Copying ). However, subsequently, it appears that the candidates bearing Roll Nos. 485286, 485293, 485743, 485827 and 488991 have been declared passed by the respondents whose result were also with held under the same category as that of the petitioner on the ground of mass copying. Mass copying was allegedly made by these candidates in the English Second Paper. IT appears that the Committee on 22-11-1991 has decided to cancell the examination of the petitioner. However, the Committee's decision dated 22-11-91 has neither been informed nor has ever been furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner has not afforded proper opportunity of hearing before cancellation of the examination. IT appears that the candidates whose result was not declared on the ground of mass copying have filed writ petition No. 10276/93 and there result were declared subsequently here also the petitioner waiting for (sic) issue a provisional mark sheet of Intermediate examination and the petitioner has got admission in B. A. Part I in Gandhi Shatabadi Smarak Mahavidyalaya, Koilasa, Azamgarh and where he has passed B. A.

(3.) I have gone through the contentions of the writ petition as well as counter-affidavit, therefore the present facts and circumstance when the petitioner has got provisional mark sheet and has persuaded higher studies and obtained B. A. degree, therefore, it is not appropriate to relegate his case to the non- declaration of the result of Intermediate Examination. Therefore, from this point of view the order dated 22-11-1991 though apparently has not been placed to this Court but on the basis of same the committee has taken a decision to cancel the result of the petitioner, should be treated to be set aside. From this point of view this order is set aside and the respondents are directed to declare the result of the Intermediate Examination of the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The copy of this order shall be furnished by the petitioner to the respondents-concerned authority. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed of. .