IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2011 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1817 of 2011() --------------------- ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.25498/2011 ) APPELLANT/ PETITIONER ------------------------ ROHIT ABRAHAM JOHN,AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.DR.SANTHOSH JOHN ABRAHAM,CHENNATTU RIVIERA, NICE GARDENS, P.J.ANTONY GROUND ROAD,PACHALAM, COCHIN-12. BY ADV. SRI.K.J. SAJI ISAAC DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. REGISTRAR,COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY,THRIKKAKARA,COCHIN-682022. 2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, THRIKKAKARA,COCHIN-682022. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI,SC,COCHIN UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.A.No.1817 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 1st December, 2011 J U D G M E N T MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 08.11.2011 passed by the learned single Judge . The appellant was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge, who approached the learned Single Judge, challenging denial of appointing an outside expert for re-valuation of the answer script of one subject-Communication Systems in the 8th Semester. It is not in dispute that the appellant, who was a student of B.TEch Degree Course, pursuing his studies in one of the colleges of Science and Technology coming under the Cochin University of Science and Technology, took 8th Semester examination of different subjects and in the subject -Communication Systems, he secured 64 marks. When he sought for re-valuation, there was no change in the marks awarded. Subsequently, under the Right to Information Act, the mark sheet of the said subject was W.A.No.1817 OF 2011 2 made available to him. According to him, some of the answers were not valued and the answers which were valued were not properly valued. Therefore, he made a request for further valuation to be done by an outside expert. This was refused by the University. However, it was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge by the University that they had appointed a subject expert for the purpose of making a report on the allegation made by the appellant; later remarks were also called for from the examiners. Based on the report of the subject expert as well as the remarks offered by the examiners, the appellant was given Ext.P26 reply dated 14.10.2011, which read as follows: “In inviting attention to the reference cited, I am to inform you that your answer script and the representation were examined by an Expert appointed by the University. The Expert reported that the valuation of answer scripts by the two Examiners is found to be correct and there is no valid reason to take any further action based on your complaint . It is also reported that due to the poor handwriting, it is very difficult to read the answers written by you. W.A.No.1817 OF 2011 3 Based on the recommendation of the Expert the file is closed without any further action.” 3. Apparently there is no provision in the Regulation of the University for securing opinion of an outside expert. The learned Single Judge at para '3' of the judgment, has rightly observed as follows: “This conclusion in Ext.P26 is fully substantiated by a perusal of Ext.P4, the answer paper obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act.” 4. On account of poor handwriting of the appellant herein, it was possible that certain facts did not get attention of the examiners while evaluating the answer paper. Therefore, the difference in the marks, subsequent to revaluation is forthcoming. In other words, according to the learned Single Judge, the change or modification of the marks is entirely due to the poor quality of handwriting of the appellant, for that no one could be blamed. In the present case, a subject expert was appointed by the University for the purpose of making a report W.A.No.1817 OF 2011 4 on the allegation. Therefore, whatever was possible under the Regulations of the University, that were complied with, without any hesitation by the University. In the absence of any provision for appointing an expert from outside to examine and submit a report, we do not find any material warranting interference. Even otherwise, in the matter of valuation and re-valuation, one has to go by the Regulations of the University and an outside agency cannot insist, in particular, the students, that valuation has to be done according to his or her choice. With these observations, as we find nothing to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge, the appeal is dismissed. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk