High Court Kerala High Court

Remya.V vs The Registrar on 25 September, 2009

Kerala High Court
Remya.V vs The Registrar on 25 September, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 26981 of 2009(P)


1. REMYA.V,AGED 21,D/O.V.K.V.NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE REGISTRAR,MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,

3. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.R.PADMANABHAN NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :25/09/2009

 O R D E R
                        P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
                        ---------------------------
                    W.P.(C) No. 26981 OF 2009
                         --------------------------
            Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

Heard Sri. P.R.Padmanabhan Nair, 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 8th 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. She passed all the papers except the

paper in Power System Analysis. The petitioner has therefore

applied for revaluation of her answer script in Power System

Analysis by submitting Exts.P2 application dated 10.9.2009. The

petitioner has also paid the requisite fee prescribed for revaluation,

as can be seen from Ext.P3. The petitioner submits that she has

passed all the other semester examinations, that if her answer script

in Power System Analysis is revalued, she is sure to secure a pass

and that unless her answer script is revalued expeditiously, she will

be put to serious prejudice. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks

W.P.(C) No. 26981/09
2

a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to

revalue her answer script 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 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

her answer script revalued, if her application is 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

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

wasting any time and that unless applications for revaluation are

W.P.(C) No. 26981/09
3

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 complete the revaluation of the answer script

described in Exts.P2 and to communicate the result to the petitioner

within six weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a

certified copy of this judgment before the Controller of Examinations,

Mahatma Gandhi University.

P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE

vps

W.P.(C) No. 26981/09
4