( 1 ) INTERMEDIATE course or 10+2 course is andhra Pradesh is regulated by the Board of intermediate Education (for short the board ) which is a statutory body constituted under the A. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1971 ( the Act ). It has been empowered to make regulations inter alia to regulated the grant of permission for establishment of colleges of Intermediate Education popularly known as Junior Colleges, prescribe course of study for Intermediate, standards of education, qualifications for the teaching staff, modalities to be adopted for appointment of such staff and conduct of I year as well as II year Intermediate examinations. The Board the first respondent in exercise of its power conferred under the Act formulated detailed rules and regulations for the conduct of intermediate Examinations. The Board has also made validation rules or eligibility rules for I year Intermediate Public Examination (IPC) as well as II year IPE. In this case, an important question is raised as to the interpretation of relevant rule/regulation regarding declaration of result of a candidate in the examination conducted by the Board. The background facts in the context of which the question is raised are as follows. BACKGROUND FACTS:

( 2 ) THE petitioner studied two-year intermediate course during the academic year 2001-2003 in the third respondent college. According to him he passed I year intermediate examination securing 35% in all the papers. He appeared for II year IPE in march 2003 with Hall Ticket No. 6555609. As per the results, the secured 58 marks in english-ll, 52 marks in Sanskrit-ll, 16 marks in Mathematics II-A, 11 marks in mathematics II-B, 21 marks in physics and 32 marks in Chemistry. The first respondent issued memorandum of marks indicating that the petitioner passed in all other subjects except in Mathematics-ll A and B. The petitioner applied for revaluation of the answer scripts in Mathematics-!i A and B. A revised memorandum of marks dated 14-6-2003 was issued, after revaluation, showing that the petitioner secured 23 marks in Mathematics-l! A and 11 marks in mathematics II-B. It was also shown that in mathematics-ll A, he passed the examination and in Mathematics-ll he failed. Even before the issue of revised marks memorandum dated 14-6-2003, the petitioner had applied for advance supplementary examination in those two papers. However, after receiving the revised marks memorandum, under the impression that he was declared passed in mathematics-ll A obtaining 23 marks out of 75, the petitioner appeared only for mathematics-ll B paper in which he secured 11 marks out of 75 even after revaluation.

( 3 ) WHILE the petitioner was waiting for the results, the Board issued yet another revised memorandum of marks on 3-7-2003 in which it was indicated that he failed in mathematics-ll A though it was shown that he secured 23 marks. By reason of this, the petitioner is required to appear for mathematir II A examination again. The petitioner placed reliance on the eligibility rules for pass printed on the reverse side of the memorandum of marks and contends that as he obtained minimum marks of 30% in Mathematics-ll A, he should have been declared passed in that paper though he failed to secure 35% in aggregate as per the validation rules. Therefore, he filed the writ petition.

( 4 ) JOINT Secretary (Exams-ll) of the Board filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. While opposing the grant of mandamus as prayed, it is stated that after passing all the subjects in I year ipe in March 2002, the petitioner appeared for II year IPE in March 2003. He failed in mathematics II A and mathematics II B as he secured 16 and 11 marks respectively. Even after revaluation, he failed. While informing the petitioner by issuing a revised memorandum of marks, clerical mistake occurred whereby though he secured 23 marks in Mathematics II A, he was shown to have passed in the said paper. On verification of the recor