IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29416 of 2009(V)
1. AMALKUMAR.K.K., AGED 27 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. AJI PRASAD.R., AGED 27 YEARS,
Vs
1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SUDHISH KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :19/10/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN,J.
—————————————-
W.P.(C) No. 29416 of 2009 – V
—————————————-
Dated 19th October, 2009
Judgment
Heard Sri.S.Sudheeshkumar, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned
standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioners appeared for the third semester
supplementary B.Tech. degree examination in Polymer
Engineering conducted by the Mahatma Gandhi University in
May, 2009. The results were published towards the end of
September, 2009. The petitioners again failed in one paper
each. They have therefore applied for revaluation of their
answer scripts by submitting Exts.P1 and P3 applications.
Exts.P2 and P4 disclose that they have paid the requisite fee
for revaluation. The petitioners submit that they have
completed their course of study and have passed all the other
semester examinations. The petitioners submit that they had
done well in the examination and that they are sure to secure a
pass if their answer scripts are revalued. It is also stated that
W.P.(C) No.29416/2009 2
the supplementary examination is scheduled to be held on
1.12.2009 and if, before the date fixed for registration to
appear for the said examination, their answer scripts are
revalued and the results communicated to them, they need not
appear for the supplementary examination if they secure a
pass in the third semester examination. On these grounds, the
petitioners seek a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondents to take steps to have their answer scripts
revalued and to publish the results before 20.11.2009.
3. Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned Standing Counsel appearing
for the Mahatma Gandhi University submits that petitioners’
answer scripts 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 petitioners’
applications for revaluation will be considered and their answer
scripts revalued, if their applications are in order, within the
aforesaid period.
4. The Examination Manual is not a statutory regulation.
It is a Manual prepared by the University for its guidance. The
W.P.(C) No.29416/2009 3
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 the University should
not wait for the expiry of 81 clear days from the date of
publication of the results to complete the revaluation process.
I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction
to the respondents to take steps to have the answer scripts
described in Exts.P1 to P3 applications revalued and to
communicate the results to the petitioners within six weeks
from the date on which the petitioners produce a certified
copy of this judgment before the Controller of Examinations,
Mahatma Gandhi University.
P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge
vaa