IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30606 of 2008(R)
1. RESMI.N.C., LAKSHMI HOUSE, PO.KANNIKULA-
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CALICUT UNIVERSITY,
... Respondent
2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION,
For Petitioner :SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :31/10/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No.30606 of 2008
--------------------------
Dated this the 31st October, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner had prosecuted a B.Tech course from the
Institute of Engineering and Technology, University
Campus, Calicut. According to her, the marks awarded to
her in one of the papers in 4th Semester Examination was
inadequate and therefore she sought for revaluation of the
same. She was awarded only 59% marks. Therefore, she
sought for revaluation with a hope that additional one
mark would enable her to be treated as having passed out
in First Class. Later, after completion of the B.Tech
course, petitioner joined the Masters’ Degree in Anna
University in Chennai where she is continuing to
prosecute her studies. She sought for permission to
appear in the 4th semester examination again. This
request was rejected vide Exhibit P4 finding that
petitioner is already undergoing M.Tech course. This
writ petition was filed essentially seeking the following
W.P ( C) No.30606 of 2008
2
relief:
“a) Issue a writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ, order or direction and direct
the respondents to revalue the answer sheets of
the petitioner in Engineering Mathematics
(EC2K 401), Pulse Circuit (EC2K 402), Electronic
Circuits (EC2K 404) and Micro Processors &
Micro Controllers (EC2K 405) of 4th semester
examination of B.Tech and publish the same
forthwith.”
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondents. Paragraphs,3,4 and 5 of the said counter
affidavit reads as follows:
“3. It is submitted that the petitioner has
made an application for revaluation of 4 papers
of B.Tech IV Semester June 2005 examination
viz EC 2K 401, 402 404 and 405. The University
revalued the answer sheets of the petitioner
except EC 2K 401 and the results
communicated to the petitioner. It is submitted
that the revaluation in relation to the answer
script of EC 2K 401 could not be conducted by
the University since it could not be traced out
and this fact was intimated to the petitioner as
well.
W.P ( C) No.30606 of 2008
3
4. It is submitted that the petitioner was
an average student scored marks of 41, 33, 40
and 41 out of 100 respectively for the 4 papers
applied for revaluation. In 3 papers revalued
there is no change as well. The petitioner is
presently completed M.Tech course as well.
5. It is submitted that the relief sought
for by the petitioner to revalue the answer
scripts of the paper EC 2K 401 is not practically
possible since it could not be traced out. At this
belated stage the petitioner cannot seek
revaluation of the answer scripts and
publcation of the results since the mark list
already been published on 07/01/2006 and the
application for revaluation submitted on
12/01/2006. At this distance of time it could not
be practically possible for the University to trace
out the answer scripts and conduct revaluation.”
3. No doubt, the answer sheets in its entirety of any
student ought to be retained by the University at least for a
period of two years. But I am not inclined to further
proceed with this matter in circumstances where the
petitioner cannot be considered as seriously aggrieved by
the inability on the part of the University to revalue one of
her answer scripts. I also take note of the fact that the
petitioner had sought revaluation of four papers in the 4th
semester examination and in respect of three of the papers,
W.P ( C) No.30606 of 2008
4
the revaluation did not yield any improved marks for the
petitioner. Petitioner is prosecuting M.Tech course and
the difference of one mark, which she claims, will enable
her to be treated as having passed the B.Tech course in
First Class may not make much of difference either in the
prosecution of further studies or in her career. If the
petitioner has been consistent in performing well in all
other examinations and true to her claim she is also doing
well in M.Tech degree then it will always be open to her to
point out the lack of one mark in one of the papers as an
aberration for which she is not responsible. I am sure that
respondents authority/official/institution would view the
same with the seriousness and sincerity with which
petitioner advances her claim.
Subject to the above the writ petition is closed.
(V.GIRI,JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No.30606 of 2008
5
W.P ( C) No.30606 of 2008
6