Kerala High Court
Mohamed Ashraf.P.K vs University Of Calicut on 23 March, 2009
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9277 of 2009(D)
1. MOHAMED ASHRAF.P.K, S/O.AHAMED.P,
... Petitioner
2. NISHANA, D/O.MOHAMED BASHEER,C
3. RUBNA.S, D/O.SALAHUDEEN.M,NAZEEM MANZIL,
4. SAMEERA.V.HAMZA, VETTIKATTIL HOUSE,
5. JOHN MATHEW, KAKKASSERY HOUSE,KOMBARA,
6. K.M.ANUPAMA, D/O.SHILA MOHANDAS,
7. NOBLE JOY, MANAYANIPURAM HOUSE,NAROKAVU,
Vs
1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMS,CALICUT
For Petitioner :SMT.M.J.RAJASREE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :23/03/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.9277 OF 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are BDS students in P.S.M College of Dental Science and Research, Kunnamkulam, Trissur. In respect of their first year, it is stated that, they have sought revaluation and also scrutiny of some of the papers. In so far as the first Petitioner is concerned, the application is in relation to the papers Human Physiology and Biochemistry and Dental Materials. Similarly, in so far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, the papers are Human Physiology and General Human Anatomy including Embryology. Similarly, the 3rd Petitioner applied for General Human Anatomy including embryology and the 4th Petitioner for Human Physiology and Biochemistry. Similarly, the 5th Petitioner made an application for General Human Anatomy including Embryology and 6th petitioner made an WP(c).No9277/09. 2 application for Dental Materials. In so far as the 7th petitioner is concerned, the application is in respect of the General Human Anatomy including embryology.
2. Although the petitioners have not produced the copies of the applications that they have made, as Exts.P1(a) to P7(a), the petitioners have produced the challan receipt, evidencing payment of fee for revaluation. Similarly by Exts.P1
(b) to P7(b) they have produced the challan receipts which according to them evidencing payment of fee for scrutiny. Petitioners' complaint is that revaluation has not been completed so far and scrutiny also has not bee completed. It is complaining of delay on the part of the University in this regard the writ petition is filed,.
3. I heard the standing counsel appearing for the respondent University.
4. Having regard to the facts as above, this writ petition is disposed of directing that, if the applications made by the petitioners are received and are otherwise in order, the WP(c).No9277/09. 3 revaluation sought for shall be completed and the results declared on that basis. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Once revaluation is completed, without any further delay scrutiny shall also be completed.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the respondent for compliance.
(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No9277/09. 4