Loading...
Responsive image

Nameeta K.Manuel vs Calicut University on 17 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
Nameeta K.Manuel vs Calicut University on 17 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 35262 of 2009(C)


1. NAMEETA K.MANUEL, AGED 21 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. CALICUT UNIVERSITY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.JAJU BABU

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :17/12/2009

 O R D E R

P.N.RAVINDRAN,J.

—————————————-
W.P.(C) No. 35262 of 2009 – C

—————————————-
Dated 17th December, 2009

Judgment

The petitioner appeared for the eighth semester B.Tech.

Degree Examination in Computer Science and Engineering

conducted by the University of Calicut in June, 2009. The

petitioner failed in the paper ‘Computer Architecture and

Parallel Processing’. She therefore applied for revaluation.

After revaluation, Ext.P3 communication was sent to the

petitioner informing her that there is no change in the marks

on revaluation. This writ petition is filed contending that there

has been no proper valuation. Though the petitioner has not

specifically made an averment in the writ petition, in Ext.P5

representation addressed to a member of the Syndicate the

petitioner has stated that original revaluation and the

revaluation was conducted by the very same examiner. On

that ground, the petitioner seeks a direction to the

respondents to consider Ext.P5 and pass orders thereon within

W.P.(C) No.35262/2009 2

a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

2. When the writ petition came up for admission on

8.12.2009, the learned standing counsel was requested to get

instructions as regards the averment in paragraph 2 of Ext.P5

representation that the original valuation and the revaluation

were conducted by the very same examiner. A counter

affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it

is stated that there is no difference in the marks on

revaluation. It is also stated that the answer scripts were got

revalued by a Lecturer in Computer Science working in the

Government Engineering College, Thrissur.

3. Today, when the writ petition came up for further

hearing, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned standing counsel

made available to me the mark statements prepared after the

original valuation which was conducted in a centralised

valuation camp and the mark list prepared after revaluation by

a Lecturer in Computer Science working in Government

Engineering College, Thrissur. It is evident from the mark

statements furnished to me that the original valuation and the

W.P.(C) No.35262/2009 3

revaluation were conducted by different examiners. If that be

so, there is no reason why the respondents should be called

upon to consider Ext.P5 and take a decision thereon. Such an

exercise would be of no use on the admitted facts of the case.

I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ

petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.

P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge

vaa

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information