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
