IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 5622 of 2009(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL LATHEEF,ARAKKAL HOUSE,PALLURUTHY, COCHIN-6,KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CONTROLLER EXAMINATIONS,UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REGISTRAR,UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, PALAYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA LOK AYUKTHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No. 5622 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner was a M.A (history) student under the respondent University during the academic year 1978-80. It is stated that during April,2007 petitioner appeared for the examination and he failed in the previous examination and final results were withheld. 2. In this writ Petition, petitioner submits that in view of the regulations of the University, his papers should be sent for 3rd valuation which according to the petitioner is permissible in terms of Ext.P1. However, along with the statement University has produced Ext.R1(a) a University order dated 2.9.2003, which provides that in the case of science subjects when there is a difference of 10% of the maximum marks between the two valuations and 15% in the case of other subjects, University will sent the papers for a third valuation. Therefore, the question is whether the WP(c).No.5622/09 2 difference between the first and 2nd valuation is at least 15% in the case of the petitioner. 3. In paragraph 6 of the statement the University has also given the difference in marks in so far as the papers Historical Method, History of Modern Kerala, Ancient Indian Civilization , which shows that the difference is only 12.7%, 10% and 6.7% respectively. Evidently therefore the difference between the first valuation and the 2nd valuation is far less that 15% specified and if that be so, the refusal on the part of the University in sending petitioner's answer paper s for 3rd valuation deserves to be upheld and I do so. 4. Petitioner submits that if Exts.P1 and P2 will be interpreted as one requiring that the difference of 15% should be of maximum marks, for a 3rd valuation, the same is illegal and unconstitutional. I see no substance in this contention. It is for the University to frame regulations in this regard and it is in exercise of that freedom that the University has framed that regulation. While so University has fixed 15% WP(c).No.5622/09 3 of the maximum marks available as the as a minimum difference required for 3rd valuation. No objection can be taken for the such fixation. Petitioner also has not shown me any statutory provision which is offended by the University while imposing the restriction. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.5622/09 4