IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27697 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JISON T.JAMES, THELLIYANKAL HOUSE, KALIYAR P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 582. BY ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL SRI.B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. BY SRI. T.A.SHAJI, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 27697 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Sri. B.K.Gopalakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. T.A.Shaji, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Mahatma Gandhi University. 2. The petitioner appeared for the 8th semester B.Tech degree examination in Electronics and Communication Engineering held in May-June 2009 by the Mahatma Gandhi University. The results were published in August 2009. The petitioner failed in the paper on “V H D L”. Though the petitioner passed the paper in Television Engineering, he secured only 42 marks out of 100 in the said paper. He has therefore applied for revaluation of his answer scripts in the said two papers. The petitioner submits that if his answer script in “V H D L” is revalued he is sure to secure a pass and that he is sure to get better marks if his answer script in Television Engineering is revalued. The petitioner submits that as he has completed his course of studying and is awaiting employment, the respondents are bound to revalue his answer scripts and to publish the results W.P.(C) No. 27697/09 2 expeditiously. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to revalue his answer scripts expeditiously and 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 application for revaluation will be considered and his answer scripts revalued, if his application is 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 (1) KLT 812) held that the University should hurry with applications for revaluation without W.P.(C) No. 27697/09 3 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 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 revalue the petitioner's answer scripts and to communicate the result to him within six weeks from the date on which he produces a certified copy of this judgment before the Controller of Examinations, Mahatma Gandhi University. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps W.P.(C) No. 27697/09 4