Kerala High Court
Nimmi.T.N vs The Mahatma Gandhi University on 17 September, 2009
Author: P.N.Ravindran
Bench: P.N.Ravindran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26231 of 2009(Y)
1. NIMMI.T.N,D/O.T.K.NARAYANA PILLAI,
... Petitioner
2. RESHMI JOSE,D/O.LATE ALPHONSE JOSE,
3. SANJO.P.JOSEPH,S/O.P.E.J0SEPH,AGED 22
4. HARIKRISHNAN.E.K,S/O.E.M.KRISHNAN NAIR,
Vs
1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,REP; BY
... Respondent
2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION,MAHATMA
For Petitioner :SRI.JOICE GEORGE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :17/09/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 26231 OF 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Heard Sri. Joice George, 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 8th semester B.Tech degree examination in Computer Science and Engineering held in May-June 2009 by the Mahatma Gandhi University. The results were published in August 2009. They failed in the paper on Artificial Intelligence. The petitioners have therefore applied for revaluation of their answer scripts in Artificial Intelligence by submitting the originals of Exts. P8 to P11 applications. They have also paid the requisite fee as can be seen from Ext.P12 to P15 receipts. The petitioners submit that out of the 61 students who appeared along with them for the 8th semester examination in Computer Science and Engineering, 25 students have failed in the paper on Artificial Intelligence. They submit that they have been offered employment by M/s Infosys Technologies Limited. The petitioners also submit W.P.(C) No. 26231/09 2 that if their answer scripts in Artificial Intelligence are revalued, they are sure to secure a pass and that unless their answer scripts are revalued expeditiously, they will be put to serious prejudice. In this writ petition, the petitioners seek a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to revalue their answer scripts in Artificial Intelligence expeditiously and within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.
3. Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Mahatma Gandhi University submits that the petitioners' applications 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.
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 W.P.(C) No. 26231/09 3 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 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 Exts. P8 to P11 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 vps W.P.(C) No. 26231/09 4 P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps W.P.(C) No. 26231/09 5