IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19167 of 2008(F)
1. RANI CHACKO, AGED 23, D/O. CHACKO,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATHMA GANDHI
... Respondent
2. THE REGISTRAR, MATHATHMA GANDHI
3. BOARD OF EXAMINATION AND REVLUATION
For Petitioner :SRI.S.VIDYASAGAR
For Respondent :SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :14/08/2008
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No.19167 of 2008
==================
Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a pre-degree student who appeared for the
pre-degree examination in April-May 1998. On the belief that the
English paper was not properly scrutinised and revalued, the
petitioner approached the 2nd respondent University for another
revaluation. Earlier the petitioner approached this Court by filing
W.P(C).No. 20665/2006, in which, according to the petitioner,
she was permitted to remit the additional amount for revaluation
and for properly scrutinising her English answer paper. The
petitioner is stated to have remitted the fee in respect of the
same. The petitioner is aggrieved by the failure on the part of the
University to revalue her answer paper.
2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
University, on the basis of the counter affidavit, would submit
that the examination having been over in 1998, the answer paper
is not available now. He would further submit that as per Ext.P5
memo which was the basis for the earlier judgment, what has
w.p.c.19167/08 2
been extended to the petitioner is not a revaluation, but only an
additional memo for which the petitioner was directed to pay fee
of Rs.100/-. Pursuant to payment of that fee additional memo
was already issued to the petitioner. In the above circumstances,
the learned Standing Counsel would submit that nothing more
can be done in the present circumstances.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. Admittedly the examination was over as early as in
April-May 1998. I do not think that the University can be
expected to preserve the answer paper for 10 years. In the
absence of the answer paper, no revaluation can be done. As
such, the petitioner cannot be given any relief in this writ
petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
w.p.c.19167/08 3