IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18743 of 2010(P)
1. RINIMOL VARGHESE, KURUTTUKULATHIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM
... Respondent
2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAJU BABU
For Respondent :SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :19/07/2010
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P(C) No. 18743 of 2010
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 19th day of July, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was declared to have passed the Final Semester
B. Tech. Examination in Computer Science and Engineering by the 1st
respondent-University. She has also passed all previous semester
examinations as per the results declared by the University. When she
applied for the consolidated mark list and degree certificate by Ext.
P2 application, the same were not issued to her. It is under the
above circumstances, she has approached this Court seeking the
following reliefs:
“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction directing the respondent University to issue
consolidated mark list and degree certificate for B.Tech. Degree
examination applied for by the petitioner as per Ext. P2 forthwith;
ii) Declare that denial/withholding the consolidated mark list
and degree certificate for B.Tech. Degree examination which the
petitioner passed as evidenced by Ext. P1 at this distance of time
is illegal and unconstitutional.”
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents,
wherein it is stated that the petitioner was declared to have been
passed only on account of a mistake in adjusting moderation marks.
According to them by that mistake the petitioner was given one
additional mark in moderation, which the petitioner was not entitled
to. The University therefore submits that the petitioner had not
actually passed the examination and the only solution now possible is
for granting permission to the petitioner to write a special
examination to be conducted by the University without any fee.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
examination was conducted in December 2007 and the results were
published in 25-3-2008 and it would be totally unjust to direct the
W.P.C. No. 18743/2010. -: 2 :-
petitioner to go through the process of studying again and
undergoing another examination after almost 3 years, that too, for
no fault of hers. If at all there is any mistake that is on the part of the
respondents and, therefore, the petitioner should not be allowed to
suffer because of the mistake, is her contention. The petitioner
further relies on the decision of a learned Judge of this Court in
Sajaikumar v. State of Kerala, 2003(3) KLT S.N. 62 (Case No. 84)
in support of her case that on account of a mistake committed by he
University, the candidate should not be allowed to suffer.
4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
5. The decision relied upon by the petitioner (Sajaikumar’s
case) as reported in the Short Notes, reads thus:
“Facts remains that a mistake which was admittedly
committed by the University was sought to be corrected after 4
years. The petitioner has acquired a right after obtaining the mark
list. He having passed the examination, there was no necessity for
him to reappear for the examination. It is true that if any mistake
has been crept in awarding the grace marks, nothing stand in the
way of the University for rectifying the mistake, but at the same
time it should be done within a reasonable time as otherwise great
hardship will be caused to the candidates if mistakes of such
nature are sought to be rectified after long lapse of year. If the
mistake was rectified within a reasonable time, the petitioner
could have appeared for re-examination in the same paper. He has
lost many chances in the meantime. Now even the syllabus has
been changed, the petitioner cannot reappear for the examination
even if he wanted. In such circumstances, there is clear estoppel
on the part of he University to cancel the marks already awarded
to the petitioner.”
A reading of the said decision shows that the facts of this case are
squarely covered by that decision. I am in respectful agreement with
the law laid down in that decision. Therefore, the petitioner is
W.P.C. No. 18743/2010. -: 3 :-
entitled to succeed in this writ petition applying that decision to the
facts of this case. Accordingly, there would be a direction to the
respondents to issue the consolidated mark list and degree certificate
as per the original marks awarded to the petitioner notwithstanding
the mistake. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any
rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[TRUE COPY]
P.S TO JUDGE.