IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17635 of 2010(D) PETITIONER(S): 1. DIVYA GOPAL, D/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN P.N., PARAMBIL HOUSE, "VISHNU VIHAR", P.O.VELLATTANJOOR, THRISSUR - 680 601. 2. SHAHEERA W.A., D/O.MOHAMMED B.A., WALUMAUGOTHI ATHIRIFG, BODVATHIRI VILLAGE, MINICOY ISLAND, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP - 682 559. 3. FAIZA MANIKA M., D/O.K.A.MOHAMMED MANIKFAN, J.S.O. DPT OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, KAVARATTI ISLAND, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP - 682 555. 4. SAFEEJ. A., S/O.ALI.A., ATHILAN HOUSE, THENGUMUNDA, PADINHARATHARA P.O.,WAYANAD - 673 575. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.M.SHAJNA RESPONDENT(S): 1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENJIPPALAM, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O. 673 635, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, PAREEKSHA BHAVAN, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O. 673 635. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, THE GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, MULAMKUNNATHU KAVU, VELLAPPAYA POST, THRISSUR - 680 596. BY ADV. SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 17635 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 10th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are students studying for the MBBS course. They appeared for the 1st year MBBS examination and failed. They re-appeared for the 1st year examination conducted in February, 10, the results of which were published on 20-5-2010. But, the petitioners were included in the list as failed candidates. According to the petitioners, they failed in certain papers for a small margin. Therefore, the petitioners submitted applications for revaluation and scrutiny of their answer papers. The petitioners seek expeditious revaluation and scrutiny of their papers. The petitioners also contend that pending revaluation, the petitioners may be permitted to attend classes for the 2nd M.B.B.S, subject to the results of revaluation. 2. This is stoutly opposed by the counsel for the University. He would contend that as per the scheme of MBBS course, which consists of three phases, a candidate can go to the next phase only after passing the examination in the first phase, relaxation in respect of which is available only for the third phase. He would submit that for going over to the second phase, the candidates should mandatorily pass the first phase. He would also submit that in view of the decision of this Court in Macdeen David v. University of Calicut, 2008(2) KLT S.N. 39, the petitioners cannot be allowed to continue studies for the second year. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. As far as the revaluation and scrutiny are concerned, counsel for the University seeks two months' time to complete the revaluation process. In respect of the prayer of the petitioners to allow them to continue to attend classes in the second phase, I am of opinion that nobody would be prejudiced by their attending classes pending the revaluation process insofar as the very object of revaluation is to W.P.C. No. 17635/2010 -: 2 :- know whether they can be promoted to the next phase without appearing for the 1st year examination again. On the other hand, they would be prejudiced if they do not attend classes since, if they pass the examination in the revaluation, they will lose valuable attendance, which they should have for appearance for the 2nd year examination. Again, if, ultimately, they do not pass in the revaluation, then also nobody would be prejudiced but the petitioners themselves, since they would lose the benefit of the classes so attended in so far as they have to pass the 1st year examination by appearing for the same again and thereafter attend the 2nd year classes again. 5. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The University shall complete the scrutiny of the answer papers of the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The University shall complete the revaluation process and declare results thereof, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till revaluation results are published, the petitioners shall be allowed to attend classes for the second year. If they pass the 1st year examination in the revaluation, they will be allowed to continue the classes for the 2nd year. However, if they do not pass in the revaluation, they will not be eligible for any benefits whatsoever in respect of attending classes as permitted by this judgment. The respondents shall provisionally admit the petitioners for the second year for this purpose, which would be liable to be cancelled if the petitioners do not pass the examination on revaluation. Needless to say, the petitioners will have to comply with W.P.C. No. 17635/2010 -: 3 :- other legal formalities for the same, including payment of fees, which shall not be refunded to them if they ultimately lose in the revaluation. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/