IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2218 of 2008()
1. BINJU.C.K., CHAREMEL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.G.UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O.,
... Respondent
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
4. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
For Petitioner :SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :19/11/2008
O R D E R
H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J.
------------------------------------------
W.A.No.2218 of 2008
-------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 19th November, 2008
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu,C.J.
A student, who had appeared for supplementary examination
held for B.Ed. Degree course of the Mahatma Gandhi University, is before
us in this appeal, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C).No.19119 of 2008, dated 11th August, 2008.
(2) Petitioner, who joined the B.Ed. course in the year 2005-06,
had appeared for her B.Ed. Degree Examination of the Mahatma Gandhi
University, Kottayam. She had failed in one subject. Therefore, she had to
appear for supplementary examinations. The supplementary examination was
conducted by the University, along with the regular examination of the other
students, for the B.Ed. course. It so happens, that, the petitioner was given
the paper pertaining to the regular examination and not for the
supplementary examination. Without raising any demur, the petitioner had
written the examination. The University authorities have now refused to
evaluate the answer script of the petitioner. Aggrieved by this action of the
University, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.(C).No.19119 of
2008 for certain reliefs.
(3) The learned Single Judge, taking note of the fact that the
petitioner was supposed to write the supplementary examination, not the
W.A.No.2218 of 2008 – 2 –
regular examination, and having written that examination and since her
papers cannot be valued by the University, thought it fit to reject the writ
petition. However, while disposing of the writ petition, he has reserved
liberty to the petitioner to prosecute those persons who are responsible for
distributing the question paper which does not pertain to the petitioner’s
examination.
(4) Having gone through the orders passed by the learned
Single Judge, in our view, the learned Judge has not committed any error
whatsoever, which would call for our interference in appeal. Therefore, the
Writ Appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
H.L.Dattu
Chief Justice
A.K.Basheer
vku/dk Judge