IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 RP.No. 1196 of 2009() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.31848/2009 Dated 16/11/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): WRIT PETITIONER ------------------------------------- JENI JOSEPH, AGED 19 YEARS, D/O.GRACY JOSEPH, CHAMAKALAYIL HOUSE, MYLAPRA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 12. 3. THE SECRETARY, BOARD OF HIGHER SECONDARY EXAMINATION, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.NARAYANAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- R.P. No.1196 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 31848 of 2009 - A ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated 14th December, 2009 Order Heard Sri.V.Sethunath, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner. 2. The review petitioner appeared for the Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the Board of Higher Secondary Education in March, 2009. She secured only 'D' Grade in Part III Optional subjects namely, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. She therefore appeared for the Save A Year (SAY) Examination held in June, 2009 in the said subjects. In the said examination, the petitioner secured only 'D' Grade in Physics and Chemistry and 'C' Grade in Mathematics. She therefore applied for revaluation of her answer scripts of the Save A Year Examination by submitting Ext.P5 application dated 17.7.2009. Complaining that the result of the revaluation has not been published, the petitioner's mother submitted Ext.P8 representation dated 29.9.2009 before the Hon'ble Minister for Education. Shortly thereafter, Ext.P9 memo was R.P.No.1196/2009 in W.P.(C) No.31848/2009 2 issued to her by the second respondent informing her that there is no change in the marks on revaluation. W.P.(C) No.31848 of 2009 was thereupon filed contending that Ext.P9 memo has been issued without actually revaluing the answer scripts. 3. The petitioner has stated in the writ petition that though the application for revaluation was sent through courier accompanied by a demand draft and her application was in order, when she and her mother went over to the office of respondents 2 and 3, they were informed that her application for revaluation has not been received. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in the writ petition is that if her answer script had been revalued, she would have secured better results. When the writ petition came up for admission on 16.11.2009, based on the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner's answer scripts were revalued and the results communicated on her, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. In this review petition, the petitioner seeks a review of the said judgment. She contends that her counsel R.P.No.1196/2009 in W.P.(C) No.31848/2009 3 could not be present on 16.11.2009 as he was laid up with viral fever and that the writ petition was dismissed based on the false submission made by the learned Government Pleader. In the review petition also, the petitioner contends that Ext.P9 memo has been issued, without actually revaluing her answer scripts. 4. A reading of the writ petition and the review petition indicate that the petitioner proceeds on the assumption that her application for revaluation has not been received by respondents 2 and 3 and therefore there has been no revaluation. However, the documents produced by the petitioner conclusively establish that her application for revaluation was received by respondents 2 and 3. Apart from vaguely stating that when the petitioner and her mother went over to the office of respondents 2 and 3, they were informed that the application has not been received, the petitioner has not stated with clarity the date on which she and her mother went over to the office of respondents 2 and 3 and the designation of the officer who informed them that her R.P.No.1196/2009 in W.P.(C) No.31848/2009 4 application for revaluation has not been received. The petitioner alleges that even without tracing out her application for revaluation, Ext.P9 memo was issued to her. In my opinion, the contention raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted. While on the one hand, the petitioner contends that respondents 2 and 3 informed her that her application for revaluation has not been received by them in their office, relying on Ext.P7, the petitioner contends that her application was delivered in the office of the second respondent. Along with Ext.P5 application the petitioner had sent a demand draft for Rs.1,200/- drawn in favour of the second respondent. If as claimed by the petitioner her application for revaluation has not been received by the second respondent, the demand draft would not have been encashed. That fact could have been proved by producing a certificate from the bank which issued the demand draft to the effect that the demand draft has not been encashed. The petitioner has not chosen to do that. Therefore, in my opinion, the statement made by the petitioner that her application has not been received and respondents 2 R.P.No.1196/2009 in W.P.(C) No.31848/2009 5 and 3 informed her that her application for revaluation has not been received cannot be believed. The petitioner's attempt appears to be to have her answer scripts revalued again by raising untenable contentions. I accordingly hold that no grounds have been made out to entertain this review petition. The review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa