M. SRI KRISHNA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings vide Reference No.E1 (Suptd)/2016, dated 29.04.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent-Special Registrar and Controller of Examinations, Andhra University, whereby calling upon the petitioner to surrender B.A.(Comp) Provisional Degree Certificate and Marks Statement issued in the year 2004, obviously for cancellation of the same on the alleged ground of fraud in obtaining the same and without enquiry as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the orders of this court passed in W.P.No.21359 of 2010 dated 13.04.2011 and consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith release B.A. (Comp) Degree Certificate (in absentia) to the petitioner in the interest of justice.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner appeared for B.A. (Computers) Degree examination during the year 2003-04 vide Registration No.A-98054082 conducted by the 2nd respondent University and passed all the subjects and he was issued marks list and Provisional Degree Certificate on 01-09-2004. But, the 3rd respondent issued notice on 19-07-2010 calling upon the petitioner to surrender marks statements and the Provisional Degree Certificate on the ground that the custodian of the records had made manipulation by making interpolation and over-writing of the marks in the marks statements on large scale which resulted in some of the failed candidates got declared as passed. Being aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner filed W.P.No.21359 of 2010 to declare the action of the respondents in issuing Show Cause Notice No.E1/Certt/2010, dated 19.07.2010 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Universities Act and consequently direct the respondents to desist themselves from demanding the petitioner to return his B.A. Provisional Certificate and to issue B.A. degree final certificate. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 27.08.2010 passed the interim order reads as under:

(3.) Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his representation to the 3rd respondent on 14-09-2010, inter alia, refuting all the allegations in the notice and denying any fraud on his part in the entire episode and requested the authorities to drop further proceedings and issue the original Degree Certificate. When the 3rd respondent authority had not passed any order, the petitioner had constrained to file contempt case in C.C.No.1840 of 2011 and at the hearing of the contempt case, the 3rd respondent raised a controversy on the representation filed by the petitioner stating that his representation is not available in their records in spite of the same is sent by registered post acknowledgment due and was delivered on 17-09- 210, Sri M.V. Rajaram, learned counsel appearing for the contemnor sought permission of the court to obtain a copy of the petitioner's explanation dated 14.09.2010 and stated that he would advise his clients to pass orders afresh after considering the same and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as per the order dated 27.08.2010 passed by this court in WPMP.No.27169 of 2010 in W.P.No.21359 of 2010. While according permission to the University to obtain a copy of the petitioner's explanation dated 14.09.2010 and for due compliance of the order of this court dated 27.08.2010 passed in WPMP.No.27169 of 2010 in W.P.No.21359 of 2010, time for such compliance as stipulated in the said order shall commence from the date of receipt of copy of the order, the contempt case is closed on 13.04.2011, stating that there is no wilful disobedience of the said order is established warranting exercise of contempt jurisdiction. However, it appears from the record in the court itself, the petitioner's counsel extended a copy of the petitioner's representation to the University counsel, who in turn has to transmit it to the Registrar, as per the orders of this Court, thereafter, the University has not passed any order as directed by this Court. Again, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order dated 29.04.2016 on the request of the petitioner's letter dated 12.02.2016 to issue original Degree Certificate. It is profitable to extract the contents of the impugned letter verbatim for easy reference of this court. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_97_LAWS(APH)10_2020_1.html</FRM>