IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 62 of 2002(W) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.290/2000 Dated 16/02/2001 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT: ------------------------------- M.V.JOHN, 35/1514-A, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, COCHIN-25. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM, REP. BY THE REGISTRAR. 2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. 3. SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED SCIENCES, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REGIONAL CENTRE, EDAPPALLY, REP. BY DIRECTOR. ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY FOR R1,2,3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... R.P. No.62 of 2002 in Writ Appeal 290 of 2000 & C.M.P. No.483 of 2002 .................................................................... Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard review petitioner and Standing Counsel appearing for the University. The review petitioner wrote MCA examination during 1995 wherein in the disputed subject he got 8 marks on first valuation and 16 marks on second valuation. He was awarded the average of these two i.e. 12 marks out of the total of 75 marks for the subject. As a special case, the learned Single Judge ordered a third valuation wherein the difference is two marks. The Writ Appeal was dismissed because nothing more was required to be done to take care of petitioner's complaints. It is against this judgment Review Petition was filed 8 years back with a delay of 303 days and moved before us now. We do not find any merit in the Review Petition because there is no scope for considering the objections raised about valuation of an answer book in respect of an examination written 15 years back. 2 Therefore, we do not find any ground to condone the delay. Consequently delay petition and Review Petition are dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge pms