IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25724 of 2009(I)
1. AMAL VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 22
... Petitioner
2. ARUN NAIR, S/O.R.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR,
3. ABHISHEK.S., S/O.P.G.SARANGADHARAN,
Vs
1. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
... Respondent
2. REGISTRAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ
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. 25724 OF 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Heard Sri. T.H.Abdul Azeez, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Sri. T.A.Shaji, the learned standing counsel appearing for
the Mahatma Gandhi University.
2. The petitioners appeared for the 8th semester B.Tech degree
examination in Mechanical Engineering held in May-June 2009 by the
Mahatma Gandhi University. The results were published in August 2009.
All the petitioners failed in the paper on Automobile Engineering. The
petitioners have therefore applied for scrutiny and revaluation of their
answer scripts and have paid the requisite fee. Exts.P5 and P6 are the
applications submitted by petitioners 2 and 3 for revaluation. Though a
copy of the application submitted by the first petitioner is not produced, the
letter sent by him to the Controller of Examinations giving the details of the
applications for scrutiny and revaluation submitted by him is produced as
Ext.P4. The petitioners submit that they are sure to secure a pass if
their answer scripts in Automobile Engineering are revalued. The
petitioners submit that unless their answer scripts are revalued
expeditiously, they will be put to serious prejudice.
3. Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned standing counsel appearing for the
W.P.(C) No. 25724/09
2
Mahatma Gandhi University submits that the petitioners’ applications
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 the answer scripts
revalued, if the applications are in order, within the aforesaid period. As
regards scrutiny of the answer scripts, 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. 25724/09
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.P4, P5 and P6 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. The Controller of Examinations shall, within ten days from the
date on which the petitioners produce a certified copy of this judgment
before him also make arrangements for scrutiny of their answer scripts.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
vps