IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26657 of 2009(B)
1. JOBBY JOSE, NADUVILEDATH HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY -
... Respondent
2. THE REGISTRAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :23/09/2009
O R D E R
P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.
````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 26657 of 2009 B
`````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Heard Smt.Pooja Surendran, 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 eighth semester B.Tech
degree examination in Computer Science and Engineering conducted by
the Mahatma Gandhi University in May-June 2009. The results were
published in August 2009. The petitioner failed in the paper “Security in
Computing Code-A”. He has, therefore, applied for revaluation of his
answer script in the said paper on 14.9.2009. He has also paid the
requisite fee as can be seen from Ext.P1. The petitioner submits that
he has passed all the other semester examinations and the other papers
of the eighth semester examination and that he has got appointment as
Software Engineer in a private firm at Bangalore. The petitioner
submits that unless his answer script in the paper “Security in
Computing Code-A” for which he had appeared for the eighth semester
examination is expeditiously revalued and the results communicated to
WPC.26657/09
: 2 :
him, he will be put to serious prejudice. In this writ petition, the
petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to revalue his answer script in “Security in Computing
Code-A” for which he had appeared in the eighth semester examination
held in June 2009 within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.
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 his answer
script revalued, if his 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 Vs. Sandhya P. Pai [1991 (1) KLT 812] held that the
University should hurry with applications for revaluation without wasting
any time and that unless applications for revaluation are expeditiously
WPC.26657/09
: 3 :
disposed of, it will cause serious prejudice to 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 petitioner’s answer
script in ‘Security in Computing Code – A’ for which he had appeared in
the eighth semester examination held in May – June, 2009 and to
communicate the result to him, within six weeks from the date on which
he produces a certified copy of this judgment before the Controller of
Examinations, Mahatma Gandhi University.
(P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE)
aks