IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35262 of 2009(C) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- NAMEETA K.MANUEL, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O.K.T.MANUEL, "SRUTHI", HOUSE NO.33/3842 C, ARULAPAD DEVI TEMPLE ROAD, KARIYAMPATTA PARAMBA, CHEVARAMBALAM, CALICUT-17. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.T.R.SADEESAN SMT.DHANYA CHANDRAN SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. CALICUT UNIVERSITY, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O, THENHIPALAM, CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O, THENHIPALAM, CALICUT. ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, STANDING COUNSEL, CALICUT UTY. FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sou. P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 35262 of 2009 - C ---------------------------------------- Dated 17th December, 2009 Judgment The petitioner appeared for the eighth semester B.Tech. Degree Examination in Computer Science and Engineering conducted by the University of Calicut in June, 2009. The petitioner failed in the paper 'Computer Architecture and Parallel Processing'. She therefore applied for revaluation. After revaluation, Ext.P3 communication was sent to the petitioner informing her that there is no change in the marks on revaluation. This writ petition is filed contending that there has been no proper valuation. Though the petitioner has not specifically made an averment in the writ petition, in Ext.P5 representation addressed to a member of the Syndicate the petitioner has stated that original revaluation and the revaluation was conducted by the very same examiner. On that ground, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider Ext.P5 and pass orders thereon within W.P.(C) No.35262/2009 2 a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission on 8.12.2009, the learned standing counsel was requested to get instructions as regards the averment in paragraph 2 of Ext.P5 representation that the original valuation and the revaluation were conducted by the very same examiner. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is stated that there is no difference in the marks on revaluation. It is also stated that the answer scripts were got revalued by a Lecturer in Computer Science working in the Government Engineering College, Thrissur. 3. Today, when the writ petition came up for further hearing, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned standing counsel made available to me the mark statements prepared after the original valuation which was conducted in a centralised valuation camp and the mark list prepared after revaluation by a Lecturer in Computer Science working in Government Engineering College, Thrissur. It is evident from the mark statements furnished to me that the original valuation and the W.P.(C) No.35262/2009 3 revaluation were conducted by different examiners. If that be so, there is no reason why the respondents should be called upon to consider Ext.P5 and take a decision thereon. Such an exercise would be of no use on the admitted facts of the case. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa