High Court Kerala High Court

Arun Kappen vs The Controller Of Examination on 14 October, 2009

Kerala High Court
Arun Kappen vs The Controller Of Examination on 14 October, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 29013 of 2009(V)


1. ARUN KAPPEN, S/O.JOSEPH J.KAPPEN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. JEFFREY SIMENTHY,
3. BABU.S.PULPEL, S/O.SASI.P.SEBASTIAN

                        Vs



1. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.R.MICHAEL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :14/10/2009

 O R D E R
                           P.N.RAVINDRAN, J
                 ...........................................
                 WP(C).NO.29013                OF 2009
                 ............................................
        DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioners appeared for the 8th semester B.Tech

Degree Examination in Mechanical Engineering conducted by

Mahatma Gandhi University in May-June 2009. The results were

published in August, 2009. The petitioners failed in various

papers. They have therefore applied for revaluation of their

answer scripts by submitting Exts.P1 to P3 applications. It is

submitted that petitioners 1 and 2 have also applied for scrutiny

of their answer scripts. 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. The petitioners also

submit that they are desirous of seeking employment and unless

their answer scripts are expeditiously revalued, they will be put

to serious prejudice. In this writ petition, the petitioners seek a

writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to

revalue their answer scripts and to publish the results

expeditiously.

Wpc 29013/2009 2

2. Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned standing counsel appearing for

the Mahatma Gandhi University submits that petitioner’s 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. 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.

3. 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

Wpc 29013/2009 3

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.

I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to

the respondents to complete the revaluation of the answer

scripts of the petitioners and to communicate the result 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 the answer

scripts referred to in Exts.P1 and P2, if applications for scrutiny

have been filed in time and the requisite fee has been paid.

P.N.RAVINDRAN,
JUDGE
lgk