IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3858 of 2010(F)
1. SETHU CHINNU P.C., D/O. CHINNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
3. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
5. GOVERNMENT BOYS,
For Petitioner :SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :03/06/2010
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.3858 OF 2010
-------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of JUNE, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was a student of the Plus Two course in the
5th respondent School for the academic year 2007-2009. The
petitioner was not allowed to write the examination by the 5th
respondent, on the premise that if the petitioner is permitted to
write the examination they are not sure about her success.
Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner approached this Court by
filing W.P.(c)No.6989/09 and as per the interim orders of this
court, the petitioner wrote the examination. But in
W.A.No.583/09 the Division Bench declined to stay the interim
order, but directed that the results shall not be published.
Ultimately, by Ext.P9 judgment the Division Bench directed the
learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition itself. By
Ext.P10 judgment, the learned Single Judge found that in the
examination written pursuant to the interim order, the petitioner
failed in Physics and Chemistry and therefore there cannot be a
W.P.(c)No.3858/10 2
direction to declare the results of the examination undertaken
by the petitioner in that judgment. The petitioner was
permitted to file a representation and the representation was
directed to be disposed of. The petitioner filed Ext.P11
representation. Since no favourable orders were passed, the
petitioner filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
“I. To call for the records leading to the issuance
of Exhibit P1 examine its legality and propriety and
quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.
II. To issue a writ of mandamus and direct the
1st respondent to produce all the answer sheet of
the petitioner before this honourable court.
III. To issue a writ of mandamus and direct the
2nd respondent to conduct revaluation of all the
answer sheet of the petitioner by an independent
authority.
IV. To issue a writ of mandamus and direct the
2nd respondent to declare the result of the
petitioner”
The learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that the
petitioner may be permitted to scrutinize the answer papers
for Physics and Chemistry, in which the petitioner has failed.
The learned Government Pleader submits that the examination
itself was written pursuant to interim orders of this Court and
ultimately this court refused to direct the respondents to
W.P.(c)No.3858/10 3
declare the results and therefore no scrutiny can be allowed.
Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition
with a direction to the second respondent to permit the
petitioner to see the answer papers of Physics and Chemistry
without any right in respect thereof on the petitioner.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
acd
W.P.(c)No.3858/10 4
W.P.(c)No.3858/10 5