IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26924 of 2009(I)
1. TOM SANTY, ROTTANIKATT HOUSE,
... Petitioner
2. NIKHILRAJ, MARINGATTU HOUSE,
3. GOPINATH NADAGOPAL, SRI. KRISHNA BHAVAN,
4. SHAKIN GEORGE, KANDATHIL,
5. JEFFRY JOSE, MANGALY HOUSE,
6. AKHIL BASHI,
7. EBIN P, ENCHAKAL HOUSE,
8. PRAVIN MATHEW KOSHY,
9. SAKKUR JACOB, KUZHIVELITHADAM,
Vs
1. MAHATMA GANDHI
... Respondent
2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.J.MICHAEL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :24/09/2009
O R D E R
P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.26924 OF 2009
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
Heard Sri.T.J.Michael, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned standing counsel
appearing for the Mahatma Gandhi University.
2. The petitioners appeared for the eighth semester B.Tech
Degree examination in Electrical and Electronics Engineering
conducted by the Mahatma Gandhi University in May/June 2009.
The results were published in August 2009. The petitioners failed
in various papers of the eighth semester examination. They have
therefore applied for revaluation of their answer scripts by
submitting Exhibits P2, P5, P8, P11, P14, P17, P20, P23 and P26
applications. They have also paid the requisite fee.
3. The petitioners submit that they have passed all the
other semester examinations and that if their answer scripts are
revalued they are sure to secure a pass in the eighth semester
examination. They also submit that they have been offered
W.P.(C) No.26924/2009 2
employment and that unless their answer scripts are revalued
expeditiously, they will be put to serious prejudice. In this writ
petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to
revalue their answer scripts expeditiously.
4. Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned standing counsel appearing for
the Mahatma Gandhi University submits that petitioners’ answer
scripts 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 petitioners’ application for revaluation
will be considered and their answer scripts revalued, if the
applications are in order, within the aforesaid period.
5. 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
W.P.(C) No.26924/2009 3
for revaluation without wasting any time and that unless
applications for revaluation are 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 scripts
described in Exhibits P2, P5, P8, P11, P14, P17, P20, P23 and P26
applications and to communicate the results to the petitioners
within six weeks from the date on which the petitioners produce a
certified copy of this judgment before the Controller of
Examinations, Mahatma Gandhi University.
P.N. RAVINDRAN
JUDGE
smp