IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 22ND BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 14542 of 2010(P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JAYARESMI T.N., AGED 27 YEARS, W/O.AJITH KUMAR, NOW RESIDING AT 'JAYA BHAVAN' KADAYANIKKADU P.O., KANGAZHA, KOTTAYAM – 686 550. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY OFFICE, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINTIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.14542 of 2010 (P) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a M.Sc Mathematics student during the academic year 2003-05. According to her, she is having an aggregate of 63% marks. But she filed for one mark in the subject Differential Geometry. It is stated that originally she appeared for the subject in 2004 and secured 19 marks, which after revaluation was became 29. It is stated that she made three more attempts and its results and revaluation results were against her. Finally she appeared for the subject in January, 2009, the marks of which after revaluation became 39. 2. The first prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to conduct a further revaluation of the answer paper. Even according to the petitioner, there is no Regulation providing for such revaluation of papers which are already revalued. It is the settled position of law that in the absence of any provision in the Regulation for a further revaluation, this Court cannot pass such an order. In this case, in the absence of any provision for a further revaluation, this Court will not be justified in passing an order as sought for by the petitioner. WP(C) No.14542/2010 -2- 3. In so far as the second prayer for moderation marks is concerned, in the statement filed by the University, their case is that the petitioner is not eligible for moderation marks as she did not pass the subject during the year 2004, the first time she appeared for the subject in question. There is absolutely no material in this writ petition to suggest that the stand taken by the University is incorrect. If that be so, the petitioner cannot seek for a direction for award of any moderation marks. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits though as per the Regulations, January 2009 examination was the last chance available to the petitioner, there has been instances when the University has allowed students to appear again for the examination. On this basis, learned counsel submits that the petitioner shall be given another chance to appear for the examination. In so far as this prayer is concerned, this is not an issue covered by pleadings in the writ petition. Therefore, if at all, the petitioner has such a claim, I leave it open to the petitioner to pursue the matter before the University, in which event it is for the University to decide on the request of the petitioner. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg