IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 09-02-2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Review Application No.12 of 2011 1.The Vice-Chancellor The Tmil Nadu DR.Ambedkar Law University, `Poompozhil', No.5, Dr.D.G.s.Dinakaran Salai, Chennai-600 028. 2. The Registrar, The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University `Poompozhil', No.5, Dr.D.G.S.Dinakaran Salai, Chennai-600 028. 3. The Controller of Examinations, The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University `Poompozhil', No.5, Dr.D.G.S.Dinakaran Salai, Chennai-600 028. 4.The Dean P.G.Studies The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University `Poompozhil', No.5, Dr.D.G.S.Dinakaran Salai, Chennai-600 028. 5.The Head of the Department, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Administration, The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University `Poompozhil', No.5, Dr.D.G.S.Dinakaran Salai, Chennai-600 028. .. Petitioners. Versus 1.A.M.Amutha Ganesh 2. A.Simon Raj 3. S.Muthumali Raja 4.N.Vasanth 5.R.Venkatesh 6.V.Siva Sankari 7.A.Subbiah 8.S.Uma 9.T.Sundra Moorthy 10.R.Kalaiselvan 11. The Director of Legal Studies, Purasawalkkam High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. .. Respondents. Prayer: Application filed under Order 47 read with Rule 114 of the Civil Procedure Code praying to review the order, dated 08.12.2010, made in W.P.No.27973 of 2010. For Applicants : Mr.V.M.G.Ramakannan For Respondents : Mr.P.N.Prakash (R1 to R10) for M/s.Norton and Grant Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy (R11) Government Pleader O R D E R
1. This Review application has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to review the order passed by this Court, on 8.12.2010, in W.P.No.27973 of 2010, and to set aside the same.
2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that this Court had passed the order, dated 8.12.2010, without taking into account the provisions made under the relevant ordinances issued, under Section 40 of the Tamilnadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University Act, 1996, by the Syndicate of the said university. He had submitted that under Chapter IV 4(1) of the Ordinances, it has been provided that a student, who fails in the Post Graduate Degree Examinations, is not entitled to apply for retotalling or revaluation. As the ordinances are in force and are being followed in all cases, and as it is binding on the respondent University, the present review application has been filed praying for a review of the order passed by this Court, in the writ petition, in W.P.No.27973 of 2010.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 10 in the review petition, who were the petitioners in the writ petition, in W.P.No.27973 of 2010, had submitted that this Court had passed the order, dated 8.12.2010, in W.P.No.27973 of 2010, taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case.
4. He had also submitted that this Court had passed the said order directing the respondent Tamilnadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, to appoint an appropriate person to revaluate the answer papers of the failed petitioners, in the subjects in question, based on the submissions made by the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 3 to 6 therein, who had stated that such revaluation would be done by a competent person, who is well versed with the subjects, in respect of which the examinations had been held. He had also submitted that special examinations would be scheduled for those petitioners who would be assessed as `failed , after the process of revaluation.
5.He had also submitted that copies of the answer papers would be furnished to the petitioners, who had already paid the requisite fee for the same and for those of the petitioners, who would be paying the necessary fee for obtaining the copies of the answer sheets, within the specified time While so, it is not open to the petitioners in the review petition to pray for reviewing the earlier order passed by this Court, on 8.12.2010, in W.P.No.27973 of 2010, merely on the ground that certain ordinances were issued by the Syndicate of the Tamilnadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University.
6. The learned counsel had also submitted that the review jurisdiction of this Court is limited and no ground has been made out by the petitioners to persuade this Court to review its earlier order, dated 08.12.2010.
7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the relief, as prayed for by the petitioners, in the present review petition. Nothing has been shown on behalf of the petitioners to persuade this Court to review its order, dated 8.12.2010, made in W.P.No.27973 of 2010. It is a settled position in law that the review jurisdiction of this Court is limited in nature as held by the Supreme Court in Inderchand Jain V. Motilal Jain (2009 AIR SCW 5364). Further, no new grounds have been made out by the petitioners for this Court to invoke its review jurisdiction.
8. It is not in dispute that there is a provision in the University Regulations that on the valuation of the answer papers, by the two different examiners, if there is a difference of 15 marks, out of the 70 marks, the answer paper, in which such a difference arises, shall be referred for revaluation by a third examiner. After the third valuation, from the average of the best of the two marks awarded, the marks, which are beneficial to the candidate, would be taken as the final marks.
8. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the Tamilnadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University to appoint an appropriate person to re-evaluate the answer papers of the failed students, who are the respondents in the present review petition, in the subjects concerned, as third valuation, and appropriate marks be given to the students concerned, as per the prevailing University Regulations. This process shall be completed, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above directions, the review application stands dismissed. No costs.
csh
To
The District Collector,
Salem District