JUDGMENT D.S. Sinha, J. - Heard Sri Bala Krishna Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. K. Bisariya, learned Standing Counsel, representing the Board of High School and intermediate Education, U. P., Allahabad, through its Secretary, the respondent No. 1. 2. The petitioner appeared in the Intermediate Examination of the year 1988 conducted by the respondent No.1. His result was withheld. On 1st May, 1988 a mark sheet was issued to the petitioner which bore an endorsement to the effect that his result was withheld on account of allegations of use of unfair means. Thereafter in the first week of August, 1989, the petitioner received information to appear before certain Enquiry Committee on 6th September, 1989. The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Committee, There he was shown his answer-book relating to Mathematics 1st paper and was orally informed about the charge of the use of unfair means. The petitioner denied the allegations of use of unfair means. Since then no progress was made in the matter and the result of the petitioner continued to be withheld. This led to filing of the instant petition on 6th March, 199u. 3. On 8th March, 1990, while entertaining the petition, this Court directed the Standing Counsel to obtain instructions as to why the result of the petitioner had not been declared. The matter remained pending in this Court and came up for consideration 13th February, 1991 on which date the Court directed the learned Standing Counsel to produce record. The matter has again come up for consideration today. Sri P.K. Bisariya, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent No. 1 informs the Court that the orders of the Court were duly communicated to the respondent No. 1 but the Standing counsel has not been furnished with any instruction, whatsoever. Normally, the Court would have directed the Standing Counsel to file a counter affidavit and granted requisite time therefor. But, keeping in view of the fact that the respondent No. 1, as stated by the learned Standing Counsel, is not responding inspite of due communication to him of the orders of the Court and the fact that the career of the petitioner is suffering without there being any fault on his part, the Court proceeds to decide this petition on the footing that the averments made in the petition are correct. 4. 4. The enquiry with regard to the alleged use of unfair means by the petitioner was conducted on 6th September, 1989 and interminable period of more than one and half years has lapsed, but neither the result of the equity has been communicated to the petitioner nor his result has been declared. It cannot be gainsaid that the respondent No. 1 is under legal obligation to communicate to the petitioner the result of the enquiry in respect of alleged use of unfair means in the examination and declare his result either way. 5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondent No. 1 is commanded to declare the result of the petitioner without any further delay and in no case beyond three weeks, to be computed from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment and order before it.