IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26109 of 2009(G)
1. ABIN BENNY, S/O.BENNY MATHEW,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.JOSE DAVIS
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. 26109 OF 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Heard Sri.Jose Davis, 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 Electronics and Communication Engineering held in May-
June 2009 by the Mahatma Gandhi University. The results were
published in August 2009. The petitioner failed in the paper on Television
Engineering. The petitioner has therefore applied for revaluation of his
answer script by submitting the original of Ext.P1 application. The
petitioner has also requested for scrutiny of his answer script. The
petitioner has also paid the requisite fee prescribed for revaluation and
scrutiny. The petitioner submits that if his answer script in Television
Engineering is revalued, he is sure to secure a pass. He also submits
that he has been offered admission for higher studies in CURTIN
University of Technology, Australia 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 revalue his answer script in Television
W.P.(C) No. 26109/09
2
Engineering 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 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 his 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 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 the University should not wait for the expiry of 81 clear days from the
W.P.(C) No. 26109/09
3
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 script described in
Ext.P1 and to communicate the result to the petitioner within six weeks
from the date on which he 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 also make
arrangements for scrutiny of the answer script, if the petitioner has applied
for the same and has paid the prescribed fee.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
vps