IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27317 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- PHILIP JOSEPH, VALIYIL HOUSE, EAST GATE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM (DIST.). BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC RESPONDENT: --------------- THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. BY SC SRI.T.A SHAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 27317 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Sri. Sunil Cyriac, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. T.A.Shaji, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Mahatma Gandhi University. 2. The petitioner appeared for the 8th semester B.Tech degree examination in Computer Science and Engineering held in May- June 2009 by the Mahatma Gandhi University. The results were published in August 2009. The petitioner failed in the paper Artificial Intelligence. He has therefore applied for scrutiny and revaluation of his answer script in Artificial Intelligence by submitting Ext.P1 application dated 27.8.2009. It is stated that though scrutiny was conducted, there was no change in the marks. The petitioner submits that if his answer script in Artificial Intelligence is revalued, he is sure to secure a pass. He also states that he wishes to continue his studies and that unless his answer script is revalued expeditiously, he will loose one academic year. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding W.P.(C) No. 27317/09 2 the respondents to revalue his answer script expeditiously and within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 3. Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Mahatma Gandhi University submits that petitioner's answer script cannot be singled out and revalued as it will lead to loss of confidentiality. He also submits that as per the Examination Manual, the University requires 81 clear days from the date of publication of the results to complete the revaluation process. He further submits that the petitioner's application for revaluation will be considered and his answer script revalued, if his application is in order, within the aforesaid period. 4. The Examination Manual is not a statutory regulation. It is a Manual prepared by the University for its guidance. The stipulations in the Examination Manual cannot in my opinion, operate to the detriment of students. A Division Bench of this Court has in University of Kerala v. Sandhya P. Pai (1991 (1) KLT 812) held that the University should hurry with applications for revaluation without wasting any time and that unless applications for revaluation are expeditiously disposed of, it will cause serious prejudice to the W.P.(C) No. 27317/09 3 students. I am therefore of the considered opinion that University should not wait for the expiry of 81 clear days from the date of publication of the results to complete the revaluation process. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to complete the revaluation of the answer script described in Ext.P1 and to communicate the result to the petitioner within six weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the Controller of Examinations, Mahatma Gandhi University. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps