IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 16811 of 2007(B)
1. ESTHER ANU PATHROSE,D/O.PATHROSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
... Respondent
2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
3. THE PRINCIPAL, M.O.S.C.MEDICAL COLLEGE,
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW A KUZHALANADAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :06/06/2007
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
---------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO.16811 OF 2007
------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF JUNE, 2007
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. The learned
standing counsel for the University argues on getting instructions. The
petitioner is a final year M.B.B.S. student of the 3rd respondent’s
college. The petitioner failed in two subjects in the second year
M.B.B.S. Examination. The petitioner applied for scrutiny and
revaluation for the failed subjects. He also wrote the supplementary
examination conducted in May 2007. The petitioner submits that since
the University has not either revalued her answer scripts or published
the results of the supplementary examination, the petitioner should be
allowed to write the final year examination subject to the results of the
revaluation as well as the supplementary examination.
2. The learned standing counsel on instructions submits that
the petitioner’s application for revaluation was belated and the Vice
Chancellor condoned the delay only on 18.5.07 and the respondents
would require at least two more months’ time to complete the
revaluation process. In respect of the supplementary examination, the
learned standing counsel would submit that what the petitioner has
written in May 2007 is not a supplementary examination. According to
W.P.(c)No.16811/07 2
him, the supplementary examination for the petitioner’s batch was
conducted in December 2006, which the petitioner did not write.
The present examination is the regular examination which the
petitioner write along with the regular students of the next batch.
As such the petitioner cannot claim that she should be allowed to
write the examination pending declaration of results of the
supplementary examination. After hearing the learned standing
counsel, I direct the respondents to complete the revaluation
process, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
3. Regarding the prayer for permitting the petitioner to
write the final year examination, I am not inclined to grant the
prayer since according to me as far as MBBS examinations are
concerned, a strict view has to be taken, as these students after
passing the MBBS examination, are expected to treat the public and
therefore they should pass examinations in the hard way.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
W.P.(c)No.16811/07 3
