IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29507 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.M.INDUKALA,D/O.A.KUTTINARAYANA KIDAVU, AGED 20 YEARS,2/489A,POST KARAPARAMBA, KARAPARAMBA,CALICUT-673010,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.V.A.SATHEESH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY,CALICUT UNIVERSITY POST, MALAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE REGISTRAR,CALICUT UNIVERSITY, CALICUT UNIVERSITY POST,MALAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, A.W.H.ENGINEERING COLLEGE,KUTTIKKATTOOR, CALICUT-673008,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY SRI. P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 29507 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Sri. V.T.Madhavanunni, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. P.C.Sasidharan, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Calicut University. In the nature of the order that I propose to pass, I do not deem it necessary to issue notice to or hear the third respondent. 2. The petitioner is presently undergoing the B.Tech degree course in Compute Science and Engineering in A.W.H Engineering College, Kuttikkattoor, a college affiliated to the Calicut University. She appeared for the 5th semester B.Tech degree examination in Computer Science and Engineering held in December, 2008 by the Calicut University. The results were published on 9.10.2009. She failed in the paper Theory of Computation. She also failed to secure minimum marks in Programming Paradigms Lab. The petitioner has therefore applied for revaluation of her answer script in Theory of Computation for which she had appeared in the 5th semester B.Tech degree examination held in December, 2008, by submitting the original of Ext.P2 application dated 9.10.2009. It is stated that the W.P.(C) No. 29507/09 2 requisite fee has also been paid. The petitioner submits that she had applied for improving the result of yet another paper of the 5th semester examination, namely Numerical Analysis and Optimisation and also to appear again for the paper, Theory of Computation and Programming Paradigms Lab. She submits that she had done well in the examination and is sure to secure a pass if her answer script described in Ext.P2 application is revalued. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to revalue her answer script described in Ext.P2 application and to communicate the results to her expeditiously. 3. Sri. P.C.Sasidharan, the learned standing counsel appearing for the University of Calicut submits that since the petitioner's application is dated 9.10.2009, she is not justified in seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to expeditiously revalue her answer script as there has been no delay on the part of the University in processing her application for revaluation. He submits that if the petitioner's application is in order and the requisite fee has been paid, the university will revalue the petitioner's answer script and communicate W.P.(C) No. 29507/09 3 the result to her expeditiously. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. In my opinion, in the case of revaluation of answer scripts, the University cannot be heard to contend that the student has rushed to this Court seeking revaluation and that as there has been no inordinate delay on the part of the University, this Court should not issue a direction for expeditious revaluation. In the career of a student, any delay in conducting revaluation is likely to cause serious prejudice. Going by the large number of writ petitions filed in this Court, it is evident that the student community in the State of Kerala entertains an apprehension that revaluation of their answer scripts will not be conducted by the Universities in time, if this Court does not interfere. The Universities alone ARE to be blamed, if the student community entertains such an apprehension. If Universities deal with applications for revaluation with dispatch and act promptly, the student community will not have any such apprehension and this Court will not be flooded with such requests. Revaluation is a measure conceived in the interests of the students and when a student moves this Court for expeditious W.P.(C) No. 29507/09 4 revaluation, I am of the opinion that the University should not stand on technicalities and contend that he or she has rushed to this Court immediately after filing an application for revaluation. As noticed earlier, the Universities themselves are to be blamed for students rushing to this Court seeking the intervention of this Court. They certainly entertain an apprehension that unless this Court interferes and issues a direction, their applications for revaluation will not be considered expeditiously. In such circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to take steps to have the petitioner's answer script described in Ext.P2 application revalued and to communicate the result to her within 8 weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the Controller of Examinations, Calicut University. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps W.P.(C) No. 29507/09 5