Judgment G. C. Bharuka, J. 1. This writ application has been filed by the petitioners, who are 26 in number, for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents being officers and authorities of patna University to withhold the publication of marks-sheets for the post-Graduate Examination of Labour and Social Welfare for the Session 1988-90, conducted by the said University in June, 1992 and further direction to them to re-evaluate all the answer books of all the papers in accordance with the provisions of the Patna University Act, 1976 (in short the act only) and publish the result afresh. 2. According to the petitioners, they studied the subject to Labour and Social Welfare in the Session 1988-90 as regular students of Patna university and had appeared at the Master Degree Examination of the university, which was held in June, 1993. Since the Session in question was running iate, therefore, the Examination Board of the University in its meeting held on 12.9.1992 resolved to authorise the Vice-Chancellor to get the answer books of the Master Degree Examination in question evaluated at one or more places to publish the result in time in order to regularise the session as a transitional measure. An extract of the proceeding has been filed as Annexure a to the counter affidavit. Accordingly, the Vice-Chancellor got the answer books evaluated centrally at Banaras Hindu university and Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi by the examiner, who are lecturers and readers in the Department of Commerce and Management, B. H. U. and the Department of Social Work, Kashi Vidyapeeth The list of the examiners, who have examined the different papers, has been filed as Annexure b to the counter affidavit. Therefore, the results were published on 27-2-1993 after the same were cleared by the Board of Moderators as well as the Deen of the Faculty of Social Science of the University, who was also the Head of the Department of Labour and Secial Welfare. 3. The evaluation of the answer books and the publication of the result has been challenged primarily on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions contained in Sec.29 (2) of the Act, inasmuch as, according to the petitioners, (faint) could have got the answer books (evaluated) only from the examiners selected out of the panel recommended by the Examination Board. 3. The evaluation of the answer books and the publication of the result has been challenged primarily on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions contained in Sec.29 (2) of the Act, inasmuch as, according to the petitioners, (faint) could have got the answer books (evaluated) only from the examiners selected out of the panel recommended by the Examination Board. They have also pleaded that the Vice-Chancellor has pot the answer books examined and evaluated by the teachers of commerce Department of Banaras Hindu University, who were not competent to do the same for the subject in question. 4. To appreciate the submissions I better first quote Sec.29 (2) of the Act, which is as under : "20 (2) The Examination Board shall rendes advice to the Vice-Chancellor on conduct of examinations, and appointmet of examiners, setting and moderating and publication of examination results, submission of report of such examination results to the academic Council and generally regulating the methods of improvement in the procedure of correct evaluation of achievements of students and the Vice-Chancellor shall be competent to take final decision. Provided that the Vice Chancellor shall appoint the question setters and examiners from the panel of name submitted by the Examination Board. " 5. The above quoted provision envisages that the Examination Board has to render advice to the Vice-Chancellor, interalia in relation to the appointment of examiners and the final decision in this regard will be that of the Vice-Chancellor. But the proviso makes it mandatory on the Vice-Chancellor to appoint the question setters and examiners only out of the panel of names submitted by the Examination Board. Therefore, reasonably construed, the Examination Board could not have authorised the Vice-Chancellor to select the examiners of his own choice without providing (faint)panel of names in this regard. No amount of urgent (faint) justify the surrender of this statutory duty to the discretion (sic) of the Vice-chancellor to cloth him with an absolute power of selecting examiners. Such an action of the Examination Board is violative of the legislative intend. 6. Coming to the facts of the present case though the Vice-Chancellor cannot be said to have acted strictly in accordance with law, non-the-less, he has acted in accordance with the resolution of the Examination Board. Such an action of the Examination Board is violative of the legislative intend. 6. Coming to the facts of the present case though the Vice-Chancellor cannot be said to have acted strictly in accordance with law, non-the-less, he has acted in accordance with the resolution of the Examination Board. Since pursuant to such resolution, the answer books have already been got evaluated and the results published, any interference by this court under writ jurisdiction is bound to prejudice the rights of the students whose results have already been published. No order adverse to them can be passed in their absence. Moreover, any protracted litigation in relation to declaration of results is bound to effect the future career of the students who had appeared at the examination. 7. It has been stated in the supplementary counter affidavit that the certain representations had been filed taking objections as aforesaid before the University authorities and the same have been placed before the Examination Board in its meeting dated 23-3-1993 where in it was resolved that the names of examiners, who had evaluated the answer books of the subject in question, should be placed in its next meeting, The matter was again placed before the said Board in its meeting held on 11-5-1993 but it has to be post-pond because of the absence of the Dean, Faculty of Social Science. We have been told that final decision has not yet been taken in the matter. 8. In the above view of the matter, we direct the Examination Board of the respondent university to take immediate decision in the matter and if it finds that the examiners were not competent to evaluate the answer books of Post-Graduate Examination of Labour and Social Welfare, 1990 then it will be open for it to take appropriate decision in this regard. The Vice-Chancellor, Patna University, is hereby directed to ensure that the dispute and controversies in relation to the examination in question and publication of its result is set at rest within a month from today. The writ application is accordingly disposed of No costs.