IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19119 of 2008(A)
1. BINJU C.K., CHARAMEL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.G.UNIVERSITY,
... Respondent
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
3. PRINCIPAL AND CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT,
4. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :11/08/2008
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J
==================
W.P(C)No.19119 of 2008
==================
Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner joined B.Ed degree course of the MG
University, Kottayam in the year 2005-2006. The petitioner did
not pass the examination. The petitioner appeared for the
supplementary examination. By that time the scheme of
examination has changed. The petitioner applied for writing the
examination under the old scheme. The supplementary
examination was conducted along with the regular examination
of students who were writing the examination under new
scheme. The petitioner was given a question paper for a
particular subject which the petitioner answered. Later on, it
turned out that the question paper which the petitioner
answered was question paper intended for the regular students
under the new scheme and not a question paper intended for
supplementary examination under the old scheme. That answer
paper was not valued and the petitioner was directed to write
the examination again by Ext.P5 memorandum. The petitioner
therefore seeks the following reliefs:
W.P(C)No.19119 of 2008 – 2 –
i) issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records
leading to Exhibit P5 and to quash the same.
ii) issue a direction to first and second respondent to
value Group I Paper I Philosophical & Sociological Bases of
Education paper written by the petitioner in August 2007
with Hall Ticket No.121451 and to award pass marks to
the petitioner.
iii) issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records
leading to the decision taken by the first respondent with
respect to Exhibit P6 representation submitted by the
petitioner and to quash the same.
iv) issue a writ of mandamus directing the first
respondent to declare the results of the petitioner of Group
I papers for B.Ed exam written by the petitioner in August
2007 with hall ticket no. 121451.”
2. The University has filed a counter affidavit, in which they
admit that the petitioner was wrongly given a question paper
under the new scheme by the centre where the examination was
conducted. They would submit that the negligence if any, is on
the part of the examination centre and not of the University.
According to them, since the petitioner has answered the
question paper which was not intended for her examination, the
University cannot be directed to value the answer paper for the
wrong examination and to declare results thereof.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. I am of opinion that, in so far as the petitioner has not
W.P(C)No.19119 of 2008 – 3 –
answered the question paper of the examination which he was
expected to pass, there would be no justification for me to direct
the University to value that answer paper and consider the same
as answer paper for the petitioner’s examination. If the
petitioner has a grievance against negligence on at the part of
either the examination centre or the University, the petitioner
can seek only a damages for such negligence which has to be by
filing a suit for the purpose. Therefore without prejudice to that
right, this writ petition is dismissed.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
rhs