IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28390 of 2009(P)
1. MIDHUN DAS K.M., S/O.K.R.MOHAN DAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.RESHMI JACOB
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :09/10/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 28390 OF 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Heard Smt. Reshmi Jacob, 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 supplementary 7th semester
B.Tech degree examination in Electrical and Electronics Engineering
held in May-June 2009 by the Mahatma Gandhi University. The
results were published in August 2009. The petitioner failed in the
paper on Electrical Drawing. He had in the meanwhile appeared for
and passed the 8th semester examination. The petitioner has
therefore applied for revaluation of his answer script on Electrical
Drawing for which he appeared in the supplementary 7th semester
examination by submitting Ext.P2 application and for scrutiny by
submitting Ext.P3 application. The petitioner has also paid the
requisite fee prescribed for scrutiny and revaluation. In this writ
petition the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to revalue his answer script
W.P.(C) No. 28390/09
2
expeditiously, 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. As regards scrutiny of the answer script, the
learned Standing Counsel submits that the scrutiny can be done
within ten days from the date on which a copy of this judgment is
received by the Mahatma Gandhi University.
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 applications for revaluation without
W.P.(C) No. 28390/09
3
wasting any time and that unless applications for revaluation are
expeditiously disposed of, it will cause serious prejudice to the
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 take steps to revalue the answer script described in
Ext.P2 application and to communicate the result to the petitioner
within six weeks from the date on which he 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 said answer script.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
vps
W.P.(C) No. 28390/09
4