IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25759 of 2009(L)
1. NIDHIN K., SURENDRAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
... Respondent
2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
For Petitioner :SMT.MEDONA LOPEZ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :14/09/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 25759 OF 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Heard Smt. Medona Lopez, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Sri. T.A.Shaji, the learned standing counsel appearing for
the Mahatma Gandhi University.
2. The petitioner appeared for the 8th semester B.Tech degree
examination in Civil Engineering held in May-June 2009 by the Mahatma
Gandhi University. He passed all the papers except the paper in
Environmental Engineering II. The petitioner has therefore applied for
scrutiny and revaluation of his answer script by submitting Exts.P2 and P4
applications. The petitioner has also paid the requisite fee prescribed for
scrutiny and revaluation. The petitioner submits that he has secured
admission in the National Institute of Technology, Surathkal Karnataka for
the M.Tech degree course. He submits that if his answer paper is
revalued he is sure to secure a pass and unless his answer script is
revalued expeditiously, he will be put to serious prejudice. In this writ
petition the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to re-valuate his answer script expeditiously
and within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.
W.P.(C) No. 25759/09
2
3. Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
Mahatma Gandhi University submits that petitioner’s application cannot be
singled out and revalued as it will lead to loss of confidentiality. He also
submits that as per the Examination Manual, the University requires 81
clear days from the date of publication of the results to complete the
revaluation process. He further submits that the petitioner’s application for
revaluation will be considered and the answer script revalued, if the
application is in order, within the aforesaid period. As regards scrutiny of
the answer script, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the scrutiny
can be done within ten days from the date on which a copy of this judgment
is received by the Mahatma Gandhi University.
4. The Examination Manual is not a statutory regulation. It is a
Manual prepared by the University for its guidance. The stipulations in the
Examination Manual cannot in my opinion, operate to the detriment of
students. A Division Bench of this Court has in University of Kerala v.
Sandhya P. Pai (1991 (1) KLT 812) held that the University should hurry
with applications for revaluation without wasting any time and that unless
applications for revaluation are expeditiously disposed of, it will cause
serious prejudice to the students. I am therefore of the considered opinion
that University should not wait for the expiry of 81 clear days from the date
of publication of the results to complete the revaluation process.
W.P.(C) No. 25759/09
3
I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the
respondents to complete the revaluation of the answer script described in
Exts.P2 and to communicate the result to the petitioner within six weeks
from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this
judgment before the Controller of Examinations, Mahatma Gandhi
University. The Controller of Examinations shall, within ten days from the
date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment
before him, make arrangements for scrutiny of the answer script referred to
in Ext.P4 by the petitioner.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
vps
W.P.(C) No. 25759/09
4