IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2009 / 9TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27664 of 2009(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. LOVIN VARGHESE, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE K. PAULOSE, KAKKATTUPARA HOUSE, KINGNIMATTOM PO, KOLENCHERY, ERNAKULAM-682 311. 2. KEVIN SUNNY, AGED 23 YEARS,S/O.E.V.SUNNY EDAKKATTUKUDIYIL HOUSE, KARUKADOM PO, KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. SURAJ R, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN,P. PARACKAL(H), COLLEGE JN, VALAYAN CHIRANGARA PO, PERUMBAVOOR. 4. SIHABUDHEEN P, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, PEERAIL HOUSE, ALIPARAMBA PO, MALAPPURAM DIST.679 357. 5. ARUN KUMAR G, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.T.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, MALIYACKACHALIL HOUSE, ENANALLOOR PO, KALAMPOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DIST.686 673. 6. SULFIKKER ALI SALIM, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.T.N.SREE VILASAN, THARAVELIL HOUSE, KADATHY EAST, MARKET PO, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 613. 7. VIVEK VILASAN, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.T.N.SREE VILASAN, THARAVELIL HOUSE, KADATHY EAST, MARKET PO, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 613. 8. ARJUN M, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.MURALI C, CHANDRAKANTHAM,E, KADANGALLUR, U.C.COLLEGE PO, ALUVA-683 102. 9. JOSE DOMINIC, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.DOMINIC JOSEPH, ARAMBANKUDY HOUSE, MALANKEEZHU, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691. Kss ..2/- ...2..... WPC.NO.27664/2009 C 10. GEORGE JOSEPH, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH P.G, PALLIPADAN HOUSE, SAHAKARANA ROAD, EDAPPALLY PO, KOCHI-24. BY ADVS. MR.K.R.MICHAEL, MR.FRANCIS JOSEPH KURISINKAL. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.27664 of 2009 - C ---------------------------------------- Dated 1st October, 2009 Judgment Heard Sri.K.R.Michael, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Mahatma Gandhi University. 2. The petitioners appeared for the eighth semester B.Tech. degree examination in Mechanical Engineering conducted by the Mahatma Gandhi University in May/June, 2009. They had also appeared for the seventh semester supplementary examination conducted almost simultaneously. The results were published in August, 2009. When the results were published, the petitioners failed in various papers of the seventh and eighth semester examinations. They have therefore applied for revaluation of their answer scripts by submitting Exts.P1 to P10 applications. It is stated that the requisite fee has also been paid. The petitioners submit that if their answer scripts are revalued, they are sure to secure a pass and that unless their answer scripts are expeditiously W.P.(C) No.27664/2009 2 revalued, they will be put to serious prejudice. In this writ petition, the petitioners pray for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to revalue their answer scripts described in Exts.P1 to P10 applications and to communicate the result expeditiously. 3. Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Mahatma Gandhi University submits that petitioners' answer scripts 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 petitioners' applications for revaluation will be considered and their answer script revalued, if their applications are 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 W.P.(C) No.27664/2009 3 (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 students. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the 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 scripts described in Exts.P1 to P10 applications and to communicate the results to the petitioners within eight weeks from the date on which the petitioners produce a certified copy of this judgment, before the Controller of Examinations, Mahatma Gandhi University. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa