High Court Kerala High Court

Muhammed Sabin.K.P vs The Controller Of Examinations on 22 September, 2009

Kerala High Court
Muhammed Sabin.K.P vs The Controller Of Examinations on 22 September, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 26544 of 2009(K)


1. MUHAMMED SABIN.K.P,S/O.K.S.PAREED,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. NIHANT.K.S,S/O.SIVAN.K.R,KOTTILAPPILLY
3. JINO PAUL,S/O.PAUL.P.V,PANICHIKUDY HOUSE
4. FIDHA HUSSAIN,S/O.HUSSAIN.C.M,
5. SHYJU.R,S/O.RAMANAN.B,SHYNI NIVAS,
6. MUHAMMED NISHAD.K,S/O.MUHAMMED.K,

                        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 :22/09/2009

 O R D E R
                       P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.

                 ````````````````````````````````
                      W.P.(C) No. 26544 of 2009 K
                `````````````````````````````````
              Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

Heard Smt.Reshmi Jacob, the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners and Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned standing counsel

appearing for the Mahatma Gandhi University.

2. The petitioners appeared for the seventh semester B.Tech

degree examination in Electrical and Electronics Engineering in the year

2008. They failed in the paper on Electrical Drawing. They, therefore,

appeared for the supplementary examination held in May 2009.

Simultaneously, they also appeared for the eighth semester examination

held in May-June 2009. The results of the seventh and eighth semester

examinations were published in August 2009. The petitioners passed all

the papers of the eighth semester. They, however, again failed in the

paper on Electrical Drawing for which they had appeared in the

supplementary seventh semester examination conducted in May 2009.

The petitioners have, therefore, applied for revaluation of their answer

scripts in Electrical Drawing by submitting the originals of Exts.P7 to

P12 applications. They have also paid the requisite fee. The petitioners

submit that they have done well in the supplementary examination and

WPC.26544/09
: 2 :

that if their answer scripts are revalued, they are sure to secure a pass

in the examination. They submit that as they have completed their

studies and have also passed the other semester examinations including

the eighth semester, it will cause serious prejudice to them, if their

answer scripts in Electrical Drawing are not expeditiously revalued. In

this writ petition, the petitioners seek a writ in the nature of mandamus

commanding the respondents to revalue the answer scripts described in

Exts.P7 to P12 applications expeditiously and 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 petitioners’ applications

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

petitioners’ applications for revaluation will be considered and their

answer scripts revalued, if their applications are 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

WPC.26544/09
: 3 :

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

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 answer scripts described

in Exts.P7 to P12 and to communicate the result to the petitioners,

within six weeks from the date on which the petitioners produce a

certified copy of this judgment before the Controller of Examinations,

Mahatma Gandhi University.

Sd/-

(P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE)

aks
// True Copy //

P.A. to Judge