IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34459 of 2008(B)
1. ROY MATHEW M.,S/O.MATHEW M.L. 27 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REP.BY REGISTRAR,
... Respondent
2. REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
3. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY
For Petitioner :SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :05/12/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).34459/2008
--------------------
Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner applied for M.A.Malayalam, under the
Distance Education Programme of the Calicut
University during the year 2004-06. Petitioner passed
all the papers in the 1st year examination, conducted in
2005, as evidenced by Ext.P1. He appeared for the 2nd
year M.A.Examination in April, 2006. But he failed in
one of the papers namely `Subsidiary Sanskrit’.
Petitioner wanted to write the said exam again. As per
the University statutes, when a student fails in any one
of the subjects, he has to write the entire 2nd year
examination once again. Therefore, the petitioner
applied for the supplementary examinations held in
2007. According to the petitioner, due to illness which
afflicted him, he was not able to apply his mind fully in
the examination and therefore, though he had passed
in all the papers, his scores were not sufficient to
secure him a percentage of 55, when all the marks are
taken together.
W.P.(C).34459/2008
2
2. It is noted that in the meanwhile, petitioner had
sought for revaluation of one of the papers and on
revaluation, it was found that he had passed the said
paper. Petitioner’s grievance at present stems from the
fact that taking note of the revalued marks and marks
which he had secured in the supplementary
examination, it was found that the petitioner had
obtained 55 marks in the supplementary examination in
paper-IX against the revalued marks of 44. Ext.P6 shows
that 54 is the mark awarded to the petitioner for paper-
IX, Subsidiary Sanskrit. Petitioner is aggrieved by the
refusal on the part of the University in permitting him to
again improve the papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is willing to surrender not only the revalued
marks but the entire marks of all the papers which he
had secured as per Ext.P6. Learned Standing Counsel
for the University points out that as per clause 12.3 in
W.P.(C).34459/2008
3
Chapter 12 of the University Handbook, a candidate
shall be permitted to re-appear under the scheme for a
paper/papers in his choice of the previous/final
examinations of the P.G Course with option to retain the
original marks, but such re-appearance shall be
permitted only once. In the present case, though on
revaluation of paper-IX, it was found that the petitioner
had more than the minimum marks required for him to
be treated as having passed in the subject, he had
appeared for all the papers in the final year including
Subsidiary Sanskrit. In effect, the petitioner got a
chance of improving all the papers including paper-IX. If
that be so, he cannot be permitted to exercise an option
for re-appearance once more. I do not find may way to
issue any direction to the University. Writ petition is
bereft of merit and hence the same is dismissed.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs