V.Chanthira Mouli vs The Registrar on 20 December, 2017

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

V.Chanthira Mouli vs The Registrar on 20 December, 2017

Bench: N.Kirubakaran

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20-12-2017

CORAM : 
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
W.P.No.33362 of 2017


V.Chanthira Mouli							...   Petitioner
                                                
                                                        Vs

1.The Registrar,
Anna University,
Chennai 607 001

2.The Controller of Examinations,
Anna University,
Chennai 600 025.  						... Respondents
                       
PRAYER :	Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to furnish a photocopy of the revaluated answer scripts of the Engineering Economics paper of the petitioner (Register No.211013114018) in the 2017 final semester examinations of the B.E. Mechanical Engineering Course.

	For Petitioner	     :  Mr.Govind Chandrasekhar

	For Respondents	     :   Mr.M.Vijayakumar
					Standing counsel 


O R D E R

The petitioner underwent Engineering course in B.E. Mechanical Engineering in Jeppiaar Maamallan Engineering College, Sriperumbudur from 2013 to 2017. Though the petitioner passed all the examinations, the petitioner was awarded U grade, which is less than 50 marks, in the Engineering Economics papers. Therefore, the petitioner applied for revaluation. In the revaluation, he has been awarded E grade, which is between 50-56 marks. Not satisfied with that, the petitioner applied for review of his answer paper as per clause 16.6 of the Anna University Regulation 2013. Even though the said application has been filed as early as on 10.08.2017, no decision has been taken. Further the petitioner seeks for furnishing of photocopy of revaluated answer script. Since neither the revaluated answer script has been furnished nor the review has been done by the respondent University, the petitioner has come before this Court.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Vijayakumar, learned standing counsel, takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2.

3.Mr.M.Vijayakumar, learned standing counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner is entitled get the answer sheet. But he is not entitled to get the revaluation form. When there is a prohibition with regard to furnishing of the reevaluated answer sheet, the petitioner is not entitled to the same.

4.As far as review is concerned, the same clause 16.6 of the 2013 regulations of the Anna University, enables the petitioner to seek for review, which he has already sought for on 10.08.2017. Therefore, the respondent University is directed to review the petitioner's answer paper and declare the result within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the petitioner has made necessary application for the same.

5.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

20.12.2017 sai Note: Issue order copy on 07.09.2018 N.KIRUBAKARAN, J sai To

1.The Registrar, Anna University, Chennai 607 001

2.The Controller of Examinations, Anna University, Chennai 600 025.

W.P.No.33362 of 2017

Dated:20.12.2017

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court