IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26034 of 2009(Y)
1. TIJO ISAC, CHITTELETTU HOUSE
... Petitioner
2. JIJO THOMAS KURIVILLA OTTAPALAEKAL
3. TOM MATHEW, MUKKADA HOUSE,
4. MOHAMMED ANSAR.P. SALAM,
5. BINU THAMPY, PATHIYIL HOUE,
6. FIDO BOSE MATHAI, ERAVIKULANGARA HOUSE
7. SNAHA MERYN THOMAS, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE
8. TIBU GEORGE MATHEW
9. SURAJ ABE THOMAS, VETTUPARAMBIL HOUSE
10. SHAROON.P.M. PADINJAREKKUTTE,
Vs
1. M.G.UNIVERSITY KOTTAYAM, REP. BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :16/09/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 26034 OF 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Heard Sri. B.K.Gopalakrishnan, 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
examination in different branches of Engineering held in May-June
2009 by the Mahatma Gandhi University. The results were declared
in August 2009. They failed in some papers. The petitioners have
therefore applied for revaluation of their answer scripts by submitting
Exts.P1 to P10 applications. It is submitted that the applications
were submitted in time and that the requisite fee has also been paid.
The details of the papers in which the petitioners have sought
revaluation are furnished in the form of a table at page 4 of this writ
petition. The petitioners submit that if their answer scripts are
revalued, they are sure to secure a pass and that unless their
answer scripts are revalued expeditiously, their career prospects will
be adversely affected. In this writ petition the petitioners seek a writ
W.P.(C) No. 26034/09
2
in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to revalue
their answer scripts and to communicate the results expeditiously
and within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.
3. Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the Mahatma Gandhi University submits that 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 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 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
W.P.(C) No. 26034/09
3
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.
I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the
respondents to complete the revaluation of the answer scripts
described in Exts. P1 to P10 applications 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
petitioners shall, in order to enable the respondents to act as directed
above, produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of
this writ petition complete in all aspects, before the Controller of
Examinations, Mahatma Gandhi University.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
vps
W.P.(C) No. 26034/09
4