IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 15295 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ALEX.K.PAUL, S/O.K.O.POULOSE, AGED 21 YEARS, B.TECH STUDENT (MECHANIC) S.N.G.COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KADAYIRUPPU KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, S.N.G. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING KADAYIRUPPU, KOLENCHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR FOR R3 SRI. T.A. SHAJI - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15295 of 2008 EXT.P1: COPY OF THE MEMO OF THE UNIVERSITY. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE MEMO NO. EI-XXII/2006 OF -DO- TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.15295 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an 8th Semester B.Tech (Mechanical) student at Kadayiruppu Engineering College under the M.G. University. He appeared for the 1st and 2nd Semester examinations for “Engineering Mechanics” held by the University in January/February 2006. The result was withheld on the ground that the petitioner used Pencil for writing Essay Session after drawing diagram. According to the petitioner, it was only an inadvertent mistake in so far as the petitioner continued to write answers by pencil itself after drawing diagram for which pencil was used. The petitioner would submit that to compound the mistake as per Ext.P1, the petitioner was required to pay Rs.525/- and the petitioner has paid the same. After two years the petitioner has been intimated that his examination for that paper is cancelled. The petitioner challenges the action of the University and seeks the following reliefs: W.P.(c)No.15295/08 2 “(a) call for the records relating to Exhibit P- 2 and quash the original of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order. (b) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 2 nd respondent to declare the result of Papers, Engineering Mechanics and Basic Civil Engineering of the petitioner for 1 st and 2 nd Semester Examination held in January/February 2006. (c) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the Respondents to grant compensation towards the loss of expection of income for 1 year and towards mental pain and suffering.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed, wherein the University would state that this is a reported case of suspected malpractice and therefore the same cannot be condoned. They would also state that the payment of Rs.525/- was only as processing fee and not for compounding, as stated by the petitioner. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. In Ext.P1 memo issued by the University to the petitioner, it is specifically stated that the petitioner has indulged in suspected violation of instructions in 1st and 2nd Semesters B.Tech Degree Examination. That words “violation of instructions” was written therein, after scoring off the word 'malpractice' printed W.P.(c)No.15295/08 3 therein. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the University itself was of the opinion that it is not a case of malpractice but only a violation of instructions and no material has been placed before me to the effect that there is any malpractice at all. The case of the petitioner appears to be genuine, in so far as he continued to write answers by pencil itself after drawing diagram using pencil, I do not think that it is a capital crime, which requires such harsh punishment as denial of the benefit of the Examination itself to the petitioner. Therefore, I direct the University to give the petitioner the benefit of that examination, if going by the answer paper he is eligible for pass marks. Orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.15295/08 4