IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27362 of 2011(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. RAJ KUMAR.M.R, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. RAJMOHAN.M.K, GURUPRABHA, M.G. ROAD, ADOOR, PIN - 691 523. 2. BINCY A. THOMAS, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, ADICHAPURATHU HOUSE, ELIPPAKKULAM.P.O, PALLICKAL VIA., ALAPPUZHA - 690 503. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (CUSAT), REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, THRIKKAKARA.P.O, KOCHI -22. 2. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (CUSAT), THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, THRIKKAKARA.P.O, KOCHI -22. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.27362/2011-U: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE IST PETITIONER IN THE SEMESTER IV. EXHIBIT-P1(A):TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 2ND PETITIONER IN THE SEMESTER IV. EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENTS OF FEES FOR REVALUATION REMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P2(A):TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF FEES FOR REVALUATION REMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE COMPANY TO THE IST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT.P3(A): TRUE COPY OF THE OFFER LETTER ISSUED BY THE COMPANY TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 27362 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 17th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners completed B.Tech Degree Course. When the result of the 4th Semester examination was declared, 1st petitioner failed in “Engineering Maths-III (EC 101)” and the 2nd petitioner failed in “Automata, Languages and Com”. 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 6 weeks of production of a copy of the judgment, provided the applications for revaluation have been received and are otherwise in order. Petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp