Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 926 (AP)

A. Harikishan Rao v. Osmania University

2015-12-10

CHALLA KODANDA RAM

body2015
ORDER : Challa Kodanda Ram, J. 1. This is a case where the petitioner seeks permission to write the examinations to enable him to complete the LL.B. Five Year Course. According to the petitioner, though he joined in Law Course in the 3rd respondent-College in the year 1998, he could not complete the course or various reasons. Once again, he approached the 1st respondent-Osmania University in the year 2008 to permit him to complete the backlogs by writing examinations. As the same was rejected by the 1st respondent-University, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition. 2. By virtue of the interim order dated 23.4.2009 in WPMP No. 10976 of 2009 passed by this Court, the petitioner has written some examinations. 3. The 1st respondent-University has filed its counter affidavit stating that any course has to be completed within the double duration of the said course. In this case, the Law Course, in which the petitioner joined in the year 1998, being a Five Year Course, the petitioner ought to have completed the course within ten years i.e., before 2008. By virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court on 23.4.2009, petitioner appeared for the examinations, however, results were not declared. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-University submits that the petitioner has several backlogs in III, IV and V-Year Law Course. 5. Despite the matter being adjourned on several occasions viz., 9.11.2015, 30.11.2015, 2.12.2015 and 9.12.2015, to enable the learned Counsel for the petitioner to get instructions as to how many papers the petitioner is yet to clear, unfortunately, no material is placed before this Court, in that regard. 6. In the facts of the present case and considering the rule position that a candidate should complete the course within a maximum period of double the duration of the said course, in the instant case within a period of 10 years, and considering the fact that the petitioner ought to have completed and obtained Law Degree before 2008, allowing the petitioner to write the backlog examinations to enable him to obtain Law Degree is nothing but violating the said rule. Hence, no direction can be issued by this Court in violation of the said rule. For the aforesaid reasons, notwithstanding the sympathies of this Court, the writ petition does not deserve consideration and the same is accordingly dismissed. Hence, no direction can be issued by this Court in violation of the said rule. For the aforesaid reasons, notwithstanding the sympathies of this Court, the writ petition does not deserve consideration and the same is accordingly dismissed. Interim order granted by this Court on 23.4.2009 is vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.