IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31480 of 2011(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. JACOB JOY, MALAMEL COTTAGE, ENNAKKAD P.O., CHENGANNUR – 689 624. 2. PRASANTH K., SREEPADAM, VILAYOOR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 679 309. 3. SHANKAR. R., ROHINI HOUSE, NETTERACHIRA, NEDUMANGAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 541. BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL, SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW, SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, KOZHIKODE-673 001. BY ADV. MR.SANTHOSH MATHEW, SC, CALICUT UTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 31480 of 2011(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P-1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 8/11/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FOR REVALUATION. EXT.P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 08/11/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER FOR REVALUATION. EXT.P-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 08/11/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER FOR REVALUATION. EXT.P-4 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHELLAN DATED 08/11/2011 WHEREBY THE 1ST PETITIONER HAS REMITTED THE FEES FOR REVALUATION. EXT.P-5 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHELLAN DATED 08/11/2011 WHEREBY THE 2ND PETITIONER HAS REMITTED THE FEES FOR REVALUATION. EXT.P-6 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHELLAN DATED 08/11/2011 WHEREBY THE 3RD PETITIONER HAS REMITTED THE FEES FOR REVALUATION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 31480 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners completed B.Tech Degree Course. When the result of the examination was declared, they applied for revaluation and approached this Court complaining of delay and seeking orders to expedite the revaluation. 2. I heard the Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent University. 3. Having regard to the above, I dispose of the writ petition directing the University to complete the revaluation sought for by the petitioners within 8 weeks of production of a copy of the judgment, provided the applications for revaluation has been received and is otherwise in order. Petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/-