IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1750 of 2009(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSEPH BRITTO, KANKAPADAN HOUSE, VALLAKKUNNU, KALLETTUMAKARA P.O. IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM DIST. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM DIST. STANDING COUNSEL SRI. T.A. SHAJI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.1750 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 4th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an MBA student in the Jnana Deepa Vidhyapeedham Institute of Management and Technology, an off campus study centre of the respondent University. In the first year examination, he lost three papers, and Ext.P3 mark list shows that one of the failed papers is Business and Ethical Values. 2. Along with the final examination, he appeared for the aforesaid three papers, and Ext.P1 is the final examination mark list, and the results announced show that he did not appear for the paper 'Business and Ethical Values'. However, Ext.P5 hall ticket shows that in fact, he had appeared for the same. When the results were announced as above, in view of the obvious mistake committed, by Ext.P6, the Centre Co-ordinator addressed to the University appraising the fact that the petitioner had appeared for the examination held on 02/05/2007, and requesting that necessary action may be initiated to publish his results at the earliest. There was no response to Ext.P6, and therefore, the petitioner also made WP(C) No.1750/2009 -2- Ext.P7 representation. Even thereafter, there has not been any response. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respondent University to publish the result of the paper 'Business and Ethical Values' attempted by the petitioner in April, 2007 with Ext.P5 hall ticket. 3. The petitioner also submits that in view of the uncertainty that was prevailing, in the Examination held in May 2008, he again appeared for the paper 'Business and Ethical Values', and the results have not been published so far. The request now made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the results of May, 2008 examination be treated as the results of April, 2007 examination, and on that basis, his results may be published. 4. The learned standing counsel for the University confirms that such a request has been received, and it is stated that the matter has been referred to the Academic Council for its decision and that a decision is awaited. 5. As already stated, it is beyond dispute that the petitioner appeared for the paper 'Business and Ethical Values' in the examination held in April, 2007. It was obviously on account of the WP(C) No.1750/2009 -3- reasons, which are not attributable to the petitioner, that the mark list was issued indicating that he did not appear for the examination. The explanation of the University is that the paper was misplaced at the valuation camp. 6. In my view, this cannot cause any prejudice to the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be penalised for the mistake that the University and its Officers have committed. Therefore, justice has to be given to the petitioner and this is possible only if his result is published as prayed for by him. 7. Hence, I direct that the results of the examination undertaken by the petitioner in May, 2008 for the paper 'Business and Ethical Values' be declared and treated as the results of the examination undertaken by the petitioner in April, 2007. The respondents shall do the needful in the matter as expeditiously as possible on production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg