Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is a Reader and Head of Department of Corporate Secretary-ship, SIVET College, Chennai. He had enrolled himself as a student of the respondent University in MBA (Investment Management) course for the academic year 2008, by paying a sum of Rs.5200/- to the Directorate of Distance Education of the respondent University. He was allotted the Enrolment No.08C3290007. The examinations for the first semester of the course were held between 15. 2008 to 15. 2008. Even though the petitioner had appeared for five examinations in Management Concepts, Organisational Behaviour, Managerial Economics, Quantitative Method and Financial Accounting, the respondent University had declared the results of four subjects only and the result of the examination in Financial Accounting, with subject code 32915, had not been declared. In spite of repeated requests the respondent University had not responded. Therefore, the petitioner had no information, with regard to the result in the subject Financial Accounting. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the respondents had not received the answer book of the petitioner, relating to the paper Financial Accounting of the first year of the MBA course in Investment Management, from the examination centre where the petitioner is said to have written the examination. Therefore, the result of the said paper would not be declared. 4. The learned Senior Counsel had fairly submitted that if some mistake had happened, the respondents express their regrets and they are prepared to conduct a separate examination for the petitioner on any day of his preference, in the month of July, 2009 and that the result of the examination would be declared, within two weeks thereafter. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stressed that the petitioner had been put to severe hardship and mental agony due to the non-publication of the result of the examination written by the petitioner in Financial Accounting. Therefore, this Court may be pleased to order costs to be paid to the petitioner by the respondents. 6. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stressed that the petitioner had been put to severe hardship and mental agony due to the non-publication of the result of the examination written by the petitioner in Financial Accounting. Therefore, this Court may be pleased to order costs to be paid to the petitioner by the respondents. 6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had stated that in view of the fact that the examination centre had not been made a party to the present writ petition and since it has not been found as to who is responsible for the inconvenience caused to the petitioner by the non-publication of the result, the respondents cannot be held to be liable to pay costs to the petitioner. 7. In view of the above submissions and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to conduct the examination in Financial Accounting, on the 15th of July, 2009, to enable the petitioner to write the said examination by giving him sufficient notice, regarding the time and place where the examination would be held. The examination fee already paid by the petitioner would be considered to be sufficient to permit him to write the examination to be held on 15th July, 2009. The respondents are further directed to publish the results of the examination, on or before 30.7.2009. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.