IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28648 of 2009(A)
1. JAHFAR MOOLATHIL, AGED 25 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
... Respondent
2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.FAZIL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :12/10/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.28648 of 2009
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th October, 2009
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.P.Fazil, 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 fifth semester B.Tech
Degree Examination in Civil Engineering conducted by the
Mahatma Gandhi University in May, 2009. The results were
published in August, 2009. The petitioner again failed in the
paper ‘Structural Analysis II’. The petitioner has therefore
applied for revaluation and scrutiny of his answer script in the
said paper by submitting Exts.P1 and P3 applications. It is
stated that the requisite fee has also been paid. The petitioner
submits that he had done well in the examination and that he is
sure to secure a pass if his answer script is revalued. It is stated
that he has been appointed as an Engineer in a private concern
subject to his producing proof of having passed the B.Tech
Degree examination and that unless his answer script is
expeditiously revalued he will be put to serious prejudice. In
W.P.(C)No.28648 of 2009
2
this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondents to revalue his answer
script and to communicate the result to him expeditiously.
3. Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned Standing Counsel appearing
for the Mahatma Gandhi University submits that petitioner’s
answer script 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 the answer script revalued, if
the application is in order, within the aforesaid period.
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 application
for revaluation without wasting any time and that unless
applications for revaluation are expeditiously disposed of, it will
W.P.(C)No.28648 of 2009
3
cause serious prejudice to the student. I am therefore of the
considered opinion that the University should not wait for the
expiry of 81 clear days from the date of publication of the results
to complete the revaluation process.
5. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a
direction to the respondents to complete the revaluation of the
answer script described in Exts.P1 application and to
communicate the results to the petitioner within six weeks from
the date on which the petitioner 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 referred to in
Ext.P3 application.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
skj.