B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, a student of first year Intermediate in M. P. C. group in Sadhana Junior College, Yellandu, Khamrnam District, appeared for the examination and passed. He wanted to improve his performance in the first year, therefore, he took the supplementary examination during September/ October, 1996 with Hall Ticket No. 8652210, He wanted to appear for the second year examination, and accordingly paid the examination fee on 10-2-97. However, the result of the supplementary examination was not announced. He approached the respondent No. 2-Principal, Sadhana Junior College, to know as to why his result was not declared. He learnt that Respondent No. 1-Board of Intermediate Education, had declared him and certain others not eligible for appearing for second year examinations to be held in March, 1997. He also learnt that a punishment had been imposed on him preventing him from taking the examinations in addition to debarring him for two years for appearing such examinations after the alleged show cause notice issued to him in January, 97. The petitioner has pleaded that he neither indulged in any malpractice during the examination nor received any show cause notice in regard to such allegation. He also pleaded that no such order inflicting punishment on him is communicated to him. It is contended by the petitioner that any such proceedings inflicting such a punisliment on him, is illegal, arbitrary and opposed to principles of natural justice, and therefore, vitiated. Having been prevented from taking the second year examinations in April, 97 he has come up with this writ petition for directions to the respondents to permit him to appear in the second year Intermediate examinations.

( 2 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents it is disclosed that a case of malpractice under Section 9 of the A. P. Board of Intermediate Education Act (Act 2 of 1971) was booked against the petitioner as he indulged in malpractice while writing Mathematics Paper-1 of the Intermediate Public Examinations on 28-10-96, and a spot explanation of the petitioner was taken, and the matter was reported to the Malpractice Scrutiny Committee by the Chief Superintendent of the Examination Centre alongwith the answer script of the petitioner. After thorough examination of the answer script, the Malpractice Scrutiny Committee recommended punishment under Item No. 3 of Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Intermediate Education Act, and accordingly cancelled the Intermediate Public Examination - October, 1996 for him, besides debarring him for two subsequent exams to be held in March, 97 and October, 97. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioner are repelled justifying the action of the respondents as above. By filing reply to the counter-affidavit, the petitioner denied the allegations and contended that no show cause was issued to him, much less he was communicated with any such decision imposing punishment on him.

( 3 ) HAVING due regard to the questions involved in the writ petition, the learned standing Counsel for the respondents Mr. Prabhakar was called upon to produce the case file relating to the petitioner and the alleged action taken against him for the alleged malpractice in the examination. Accordingly, he has submitted the file RC No. 20/c254/ OCT 96.

( 4 ) HAVING heard both sides and having perused the case file submitted by the learned standing Counsel for the respondents, this Court is not able to support the action of the respondents. The allegation whether the petitioner is involved in malpractice or cannot be the subject-matter of the writ petition, nor this Court can give a finding on that. Only the procedure adopted in taking any action by the respondents in accordance with Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Intermediate Education Act (Act 2 of 1971) conformance to the principles of natural justice which are to be examined to sustain or quash such an action.

( 5 ) IN the first place, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document