IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29440 of 2009(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- CHINNU XAVIER, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.P.T. XAVIER, THATTUMKAL HOUSE, THATTUMKAL HOUSE, MARADU P.O. BY ADV. MR.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR. 2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.29440 of 2009 -Y ---------------------------------------- Dated 19th October, 2009 Judgment Heard Sri.A.T.Anil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner underwent the B.Com. degree course during the period 2005-2008. She failed in the fourth, fifth and sixth semester examinations. She appeared for the supplementary fifth semester examination held in December, 2008 and in the supplementary sixth semester examination held in March, 2009. She again failed in two papers of the said supplementary semester examinations. She has therefore applied for revaluation of her answer scripts in the said papers by submitting Exts.P3 and P4 applications. It is stated that the requisite fee has also been paid. The petitioner has also appeared for the fourth semester supplementary examination held in April, 2009. The results of the said examination are yet to be published. The petitioner submits that she had done well in the examination and that if her answer scripts are revalued, W.P.(C) No.29440/2009 2 she is sure to secure a pass. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to revalue the answer scripts described in Exts.P3 and P4 applications and to declare the results 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 petitioner's answer scripts 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 petitioner's applications for revaluation will be considered and her answer scripts revalued, if her 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 detriment of students. A Division Bench of this Court has in University of Kerala v. Sandhya P. Pai (1991 W.P.(C) No.29440/2009 3 (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 the 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.P3 and P4 applications and to communicate the results to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa