IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25341 of 2009(K) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MANJUSHA VENUGOPALAN, "ARCHANA", PERUMPILAVIL ROAD, GURUVAYOOR.P.O., THRISSUR-680 101. BY ADV. MR.V.JAYAKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, PAREEKSHA BHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. 2. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. R1 & R2 BY MR. P.C. SASIDHARAN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No. 25341 of 2009-K ------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of September, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.V.Jayakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned standing counsel appearing for the University of Calicut. 2. The petitioner appeared for the eighth semester B.Tech. degree examination in Information Technology held by the University of Calicut in June 2009. The results were published in the first week of August, 2009. She failed in two papers namely 'Mobile Communication Systems' and 'Industrial Psychology'. She has therefore applied for revaluation of her answer scripts by submitting Ext.P1 application on 14.8.2009 and has also paid the requisite fee. The petitioner submits that she has been called to appear for the management aptitude test to be held on 6.9.2009 by All India Management Association to select candidates for admission to the MBA course. She also submits that she has been selected for appointment as Junior Executive (ATC) in the Airport Authority of India and she has to submit the final year mark list before the end of September 2009. The petitioner submits that unless her answer scripts are revalued expeditiously, she will loose one academic year. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to revalue her answer scripts mentioned in Ext.P1 expeditiously. 3. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned standing counsel appearing for the University of Calicut submits that the petitioner applied for revaluation only on 14.8.2009 and therefore it cannot be said that there was undue delay in completing the revaluation. He submits that the petitioner's application cannot be singled out and revalued as it will lead to loss of confidentiality. He also submits that the University will take steps to revalue the petitioner's answer scripts and to communicate the result within the eight weeks from today. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. A Division Bench of this Court has in University of Kerala V. Sandhya P.Pai (1991 (1) KLT 812) held that 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 students. Ext.P1 discloses that the petitioner has applied for revaluation of two answer scripts on 14.8.2009. Ext.P2 discloses that he has also paid the requisite fee of Rs.750/-. In view of the reasons put forward by the petitioner in paras 6, 7 and 8 of the writ petition and the request made by her in Ext.P3, I am of the opinion that the University should endeavor to revalue the answer scripts referred to in Ext.P1 expeditiously. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to revalue the petitioner's answer scripts described in Exts.P1 application and to communicate the result to her within six weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the Controller of Examinations, University of Calicut. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge //True Copy// PA to Judge ab