Kerala High Court
Joji Issaac vs The Vice Chancellor on 24 September, 2009
Author: P.N.Ravindran
Bench: P.N.Ravindran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26833 of 2009(Y)
1. JOJI ISSAAC, ABRAHAM, AGED 22 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, M.G.UNIVERSITY,
... Respondent
2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
3. THE PRINCIPAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEO PAUL
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.26833 of 2009 - Y
---------------------------------------- Dated 24th September, 2009 Judgment Heard Sri.Geo Paul, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Mahatma Gandhi University.
3. The petitioner appeared for the eighth semester B.Tech. degree examination in Computer Science and Engineering conducted by the Mahatma Gandhi University in May/June, 2009. The results were published in August, 2009. The petitioner failed in the paper 'Artificial Intelligence'. He has therefore submitted an application for revaluation of the said answer script. Though a copy of the application is not produced, a copy of the challan evidencing payment of the fee for revaluation which contains the name of the petitioner is produced as Ext.P1. The petitioner states that he has passed all the other semester examinations and that if his answer script in 'Artificial Intelligence' is revalued, he is sure to secure a pass in the eighth semester examination. He has also submits that he has been offered appointment in Tata Consultancy Services Limited and that he has to report for joining on 1.12.2009. He W.P.(C) No. 26833/2009 2 further submits that in these circumstances, if his answer script is not revalued expeditiously, he will be put to serious prejudice. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to revalue his answer script in 'Artificial Intelligence' and to communicate the result expeditiously.
3. Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Mahatma Gandhi University submits that petitioner's answer script 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 petitioner's application for revaluation will be considered and his answer script revalued, if the application is in order, within the aforesaid period.
4. 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 for revaluation without wasting any time and that unless applications W.P.(C) No. 26833/2009 3 for revaluation are expeditiously disposed of, it will cause serious prejudice to the students. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the 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 script of the petitioner and to communicate the results to him within six weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the Controller of Examinations, Mahatma Gandhi University.
P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa