IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27215 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JERRIL THOMAS, PANATTIL HOUSE, INDUSTRIAL NAGAR P.O., CHANGANASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.G.UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, M.G.UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, PUSHPAGIRI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, THIRUVALLA. ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW FOR R3 SRI.SATHISH NINAN FOR R3 SC SRI.T.A.SHAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.C.27378/08 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C)s.27215, 27378, 27408, 27405, 27407, 27359, 27367, 27372, 27451, 27452 & 27406 of 2008 -------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Common issues arise for consideration in all these cases. Therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. I will refer to Writ Petition No.27215/2008 as the leading case. 2. Petitioner successfully completed his MBBS course from the Pushpagiri Medical College and the result was published in March 2008. Apparently, Ext.P1 mark list shows that the petitioner has scored only 16 marks out of 40 in the written examination for Paediatrics. Petitioner applied for revaluation. Results of the revaluation were getting delayed and apparently, a few days before the supplementary examination, which the petitioner otherwise would have taken, results of the revaluation were published. He was informed that he has scored 23 marks in the place of 16, 20 being sufficient for a pass. Ext.P3 revaluation mark list was issued on 29.7.2008 and W.P.(C).27215/2008 And Connected Cases 2 Ext.P4 provisional list was issued by the University. Petitioner got himself registered with the Travancore- Cochin Medical Councils and Ext.P5 is the provisional registration certificate issued on 7.8.2008. 3. On 30.8.2008, petitioner was issued Ext.P6 memo by the University which reads as follows:- Vide the Notes referred to above, the Vice-Chancellor Mahatma Gandhi University has ordered to freeze temporarily the modification of result consequent on revaluation, conveyed to Sri.Jeril Thomas vide Memo No.EI.II/2/2008 dated 2.8.08as the Syndicate Committee which enquired on the alleged malpractice in the revaluation of scripts of Third Prof.MBBS Part-II Exam, December, 2007 has observed grave irregularities in the Revaluation process. The temporary freezing is subject to the final decision of the Syndicate on the enquiry report. Therefore, the Memo No.EI II/2/2008 dated 2.8.08, modifying his result, the Third Prof.MBBS mark list with W.P.(C).27215/2008 And Connected Cases 3 Reg.No.5663/December, 2007 dated 5.8.08 issued to him stand temporarily withdrawn. Further, he is directed to surrender the above documents to the under signed on or before 10th September 2008 and co-operate with further proceedings in the matter. 4. The memo issued in all these cases are almost identical one, difference is only in relation to the status and the registration number of the individual candidates. Ext.P6 has been challenged in this writ petition. 5. Copy of the writ petition has been served on the learned Standing Counsel for the University. 6. I heard Mr.Kurian George Kannamthanam learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Jacob Murickan along with Mr.Balakrishnan and Mr.V.G.Arun for the petitioners in the connected cases, and Mr.T.A.Shaji for the University. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the W.P.(C).27215/2008 And Connected Cases 4 petitioners that petitioners had participated in the examination conducted by the University and when it was found that the marks awarded in one subject were inadequate, he had sought for a revaluation, which was permissible. Revaluation was conducted by the University and the results of the revaluation were published. Petitioner was treated as having passed the subject in question and mark list was issued based upon the revalued marks. The petitioner had commenced her internship (or further pursued the same, as the case may be). Therefore, it is not open to the University to call upon the candidate concerned to return the original documents on the apprehension that there is a possibility of malpractice having been perpetrated in the revaluation. It is contended that after all, revaluation is undertaken by the University and the concerned candidate is not involved in such revaluation. Issuance of mark list is done by the university. There is no provision in the University Act enabling the University to recall the mark list or a provisional certificate which is issued by it in the general course of it's business. W.P.(C).27215/2008 And Connected Cases 5 8. Mr.T.A.Shaji learned counsel for the University submits that it was after the revaluation was completed that the University had caused an enquiry and it was found that there has been serious misconduct in the conduct of the revaluation. He submits that contrary to the usual practice, all the papers involved in these cases were allotted to one single teacher and this has facilitated the revaluation of the answer papers in a manner which is other than fair. The Syndicate of the University took a unanimous decision to request the Government for a vigilance enquiry and also to undertake a fresh revaluation of the disputed question papers with the aid of an outside agency and it is to facilitate this that the original of the mark lists and the certificates are required to be submitted by the concerned petitioners. 9. He further submits that the University also apprehends that in some cases, answer sheets themselves have been replaced and this aspect also W.P.(C).27215/2008 And Connected Cases 6 requires an enquiry by a competent agency. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand points out that it is simply not possible for all the disputed answer sheets to be allotted to one teacher because they relate to different subjects altogether. 11. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the University as well. 12. What is of paramount importance is that the interest of the students should not be left to an uncertain fate as such. At the same time, if a malpractice, misconduct or a fraud has been perpetrated, then the parties responsible for the fraud should not be obviously enjoyed the fruits of the same. It is too early to even venture into or speculate as such on the question as to whether a misconduct has been committed or fraud has been perpetrated by any student or by the parents as the case may be. W.P.(C).27215/2008 And Connected Cases 7 13. I do not think it is necessary to decide the question as to whether the University has a specific conferred power to conduct a fresh revaluation or cause an enquiry to be conducted into the allegations of malpractice and misconduct. In my view, even if there is no specific conferment of power ( I am not deciding this question at this stage), a public body is always entitled to cause an enquiry to be conducted into any allegations of misconduct or a fraud having vitiated anyone of it's actions. 14. Therefore, the power of the University to call upon a vigilance enquiry to be conducted, into the allegations of malpractice having vitiated the revaluation of the answer scripts involved in this case (or similar cases as the case may be) cannot be questioned. But at the same time, once a revaluation has been done by the University, results have been published and certificates issued, then holders of the certificate are entitled to treat the certificates so issued as validly issued by the W.P.(C).27215/2008 And Connected Cases 8 University, until it is established by due process that the very process leading to the issuance of certificate was vitiated by a malpractice or fraud having been committed by persons who were involved in the process as such. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the totality of the facts, I am of the view that it may not be fair and reasonable to call upon the petitioners to surrender the original certificates issued to them, thereby resulting in a cessation of the course/internship which they are undergoing at present, at this stage. 16. In the result, writ petitions are disposed of in the following terms:- (i). Petitioners shall be permitted to continue to prosecute their respective course/internship being prosecuted by them, inter alia on the strength of the mark list/pass certificate issued by the University W.P.(C).27215/2008 And Connected Cases 9 pursuant to the revaluation, which they had sought for and which was conducted. (ii). It is open to the University to cause a vigilance enquiry or any other enquiry for that matter to be conducted or cause to be conducted by any competent body. (iii). It is open to the University to appoint an external Agency to conduct fresh revaluation/fresh valuation of the answer scripts. But I make it clear that any such revaluation or a fresh valuation, as the case may be, is only to enable the University to collect materials in the course of the enquiry, which they propose to conduct and this obviously will be without prejudice to the contention taken up by the petitioners that once a revaluation has been conducted by the University and mark list and provisional certificates are issued, then it is not open to them to conduct a fresh valuation effacing as it were the results of the revaluation already conducted by the University. The said contention will become relevant only if the University ultimately decides to take any W.P.(C).27215/2008 And Connected Cases 10 action on the premise that a misconduct or malpractice has been committed. (iv). If after completion of the fact finding enquiry or any other enquiry conducted by the University, they decide to take any action against anyone of these students, then copies of the materials collected by the University will have to be made available to the concerned student. They will have to be put on notice regarding the action proposed by the University and the petitioners must be given an opportunity to raise all objections including those objections which have been referred to above, before such action is taken. (v). I make it clear that the mark list and certificates now issued in favour of the petitioners shall be subject to the final action that may be taken by the University (if at all and if so advised), after the completion of the procedure as permitted above. I make it clear that at this stage, I have not considered the scope and ambit of the statutory power W.P.(C).27215/2008 And Connected Cases 11 that may be available to the University to take action against any student, on the ground that a mark list issued by the University pursuant to a revaluation conducted by it, is liable to be withdrawn or is otherwise liable to be cancelled. These aspects will arise for consideration, if at all, only on completion of the enquiry and the University decides to take action in the manner aforementioned. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs