JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - Counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted permission to delete the name of respondent no. 3 from the array of parties. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he appeared as a regular student in B. Com. Part I examination 1981 of Murli Manohar Town Degree College, Ballia, which is affiliated to the Gorakhpur University that his result was, however, not declared and instead he was served with a notice to show cause as to why action may not be taken against him for having used unfair means in the examination hold on 14th April, 1981. According to the petitioner a reply to the aforesaid notice was submitted by him on 2nd July, 1981, but the matter has not so far been decided. A prayer has been made for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner expeditiously and declare his result. 3. The writ petition was presented on 5th November, 1981. On that date an order was passed directing it to be listed for admission on 20th November, 1981. Meanwhile Sri B.D. Agarwala, appearing for respondent 1 and 2, was required to seek instructions and file a counter-affidavit. No counter-affidavit has, however, been filed. As such, we have no reason to doubt the correctness of the fact that even though the explanation in reply to the show-cause notice was submitted by the petitioner on 2nd July, 1981, the matter has not yet been decided. Since the career of a student is involved, we are further of opinion that this is a fit case in which respondents 1 and 2 may be directed to decide the matter without any further delay themselves or to get it decided by the competent authority delegated with the power in this behalf. Since respondents 1 and 2 are already represented and there is no other private party, it is a fit case which deserves to be decided finally at this very stage under the 2nd proviso to Rule 2(1) of Chapter 22 of the Rules of the Court. We proceed to decide it accordingly. 4. Since respondents 1 and 2 are already represented and there is no other private party, it is a fit case which deserves to be decided finally at this very stage under the 2nd proviso to Rule 2(1) of Chapter 22 of the Rules of the Court. We proceed to decide it accordingly. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties we are of opinion that in view of the facts already stated above, a case has been made out for the issue of a writ of mandamus requiring the respondents to decide the matter, referred to above, without any further delay. 5. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and respondents, 1 and 2 are directed to decide the matter concerning the use of unfair means by the petitioner or to get the same decided by the competent authority, authorised by them in this behalf within three weeks of the date on which a certified copy of this order is produced by the petitioner before the Registrar of the Gorakhpur University. In the circumstances of the case, however, the parties shall bear their own costs. 6. A copy of this order may be supplied to the counsel for the petitioner today on payment of usual charges,