IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 18521 of 2011(M) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M. ABHILASH, S/O.MUKUNDAN, AGED 34 YEARS, MULLASSERIL HOUSE, VELIYANAD P.O., PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 313. BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR, SMT.K.L.SREEKALA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR, M.G. UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM - 686 562. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, M.G. UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM - 686 562. 3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, M.G. UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM - 686 562. BY ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 18521 of 2011(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/01/2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HAVING NO.AC.AII/3/2383/CHEM/JAN./05. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10/06/2010. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21/07/2010. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PH.D. THESIS AND RESEARCH WORK COMPLETED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEETS AND TABULATION PAPER SUPPLIED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).18521/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 14th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner completed M.Sc (Chemistry) and applied for General aptitude Test for Ph.D. He was granted registration in January, 2005 and the subject allotted to the petitioner was Synthesis Characterization and Pharmacological Studies of metal Complexes of certain Pharmaceuticals. He completed his research work and applied for qualifying examination. He was registered with No.5046 and hall ticket was also issued. Petitioner there upon, appeared for the written examination and he was issued the hall ticket for the Viva-voce. He appeared for the Viva-voce and accordingly, he completed the same. However, when the respondents published the results of the qualifying examination, petitioner's name was excluded. It was in this circumstances, the writ petition has been filed. 2. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit producing the answer papers which he obtained under the Right to Information Act. Noticing the answer papers, this Court passed order dated 23.8.2011 which reads as follows:- W.P.(C).18521/11 2 “From the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is seen that in Paper-I though the petitioner did not attempt to answer question No.27, he has been awarded marks. Similarly, insofar as Paper-II is concerned, though the petitioner has answered question Nos.7 and 17, it appears that he has not been awarded marks. This prima facie indicates that the valuation was not properly done. The respondents are directed to file a further affidavit answering this allegation of the petitioner and also generally on the valuation of Paper-I and II produced by the petitioner along with the reply affidavit.” 3. Subsequently, when the matter came up for orders on 4.11.2011, recording the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the University, this Court passed the following order:- “Standing Counsel for the University submits that pursuant to the order dated 23.8.2011, remarks have been obtained on the valuation of the answer papers of the petitioner and that the same is being considered by the Vice Chancellor of the University.” 4. Today, when the matter was taken up, the learned Standing Counsel submits that in view of the inconsistency in the valuation results and in the light of the remarks offered, Vice Chancellor has W.P.(C).18521/11 3 ordered a special revaluation by external experts from outside the University. Now that the University has taken steps to get the answer papers of the petitioner revalued as above, the grievance of the petitioner regarding valuation should stand redressed. Therefore, recording the submission of the learned Standing Counsel as above, I dispose of this writ petition directing that on receipt of the results of revaluation, fresh decision as is warranted will be taken. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs /true copy/ P.A. To Judge