SANDHYA RANI YAMPARALA Vs. BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent in directing the 2nd respondent to cancel the petitioner's admission into the Intermediate course as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue two year Intermediate Course.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for in view of the fact that the petitioner has been declared as having passed in X standard of All India Central Board of Secondary School Examination. The petitioner has produced the mark-sheet of that examination, dated 31-5-1994. From the said mark list, it is clear that the petitioner has been declared to have passed the said examination. On the basis of this mark list also and on the basis of the certificate issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education, the petitioner was admitted into the two years Intermediate Course of the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The petitioner got admission in the Vignana Co-op. Junior College (Respondent No. 2), Vadla-mudi, Guntur for the said course. After giving admission to the petitioner, Respondent No. 2-College has sent a list of admitted candidates to the Board of Intermediate Education for approval. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1-Board has issued the impugned endorsement, dated 11-1-1995 to the effect that the candidate was not eligible for Intermediate Public Examination since the candidate has got failed marks in language i.e., in English. It is further noted in the said endorsement that the same may be informed to the candidate accordingly. A copy of the endorsement is filed in the Writ Petition along with material papers at page No. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this order of the respondent

(3.) As against this, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was eligible on two counts namely,