B VIJENDER REDDY Vs. VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The case before the learned single Judge as wel 1 as before us has been presented as if writ petitioner - appellants have been innocent victims who entered B.Ed, course of the University unwittingly, prosecuted their studies, were permitted to appear in the examinations and when the stage is set for publication of results they are informed, since they are not eligible for admission to B.Ed, course, their results would not be published. There has been serious attempt before the learned single Judge to bring the case of the writ petitioner - appellants within the principles stated in various judgments of the Supreme Court such as Rajendra Prasad v. Karnataka University (1) AIR 1986 SC 1448, Sri Krishan v. Kurukshetra University (2) AIR 1976 SC 376, A.K.E. Society v. Director of School Education (3) AIR 1989 SC 183, Sanatan Guda v. Berhampur University (4) AIR 1990 SC 1075 and Prabhjot Wahi v. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar (5) AIR 1996 P&H 269 and the same endeavour has been made before us to project the writ petitioners - appellants as such victims, who were not informed about their ineligibility when they were admitted to the courses of study, but now after they have completed their studies, appeared in the examination their result is sought to be withheld.

(3.) Facts are not in dispute. Writ petitioner-appellants are Graduates either in Arts, or Commerce, or Science who are allegedly working as teachers in private schools on nominal salaries. They were admitted to B.Ed. Correspondence Course for the academic year 1991 -92 in Sri Venkateswara University in the month of July/August 1991. Pursuant to the admissions given to them, they were issued identity cards and allotted numbers. They were taken through some curriculum of the University for correspondence course and were also cleared through of the formalities required for the purpose of appearing in the examinations conducted by the University. They were permitted to appear in the examination. However, when results were published, they found their names not included in the results. It is alleged and learned single Judge has noticed the facts in these words: