IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27557 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.SIJU RAJ A, SHAKTI VILLA,VISHNU VIHAR ROAD, VIYYUR, THRISSUR-680 010. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 3. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,' THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.27557 OF 2010(T) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a student of M.S. Opthalmology in the Thiruvananthapuram Medical College. He failed in the final examination. He applied for disclosing his marks. It is stated that the same was refused by the respondent University. Then he made an application under the Right to Information Act for furnishing copies of the answer papers. In response to the said application, he was issued Ext.P1 series of answer papers with the marks scored off. According to the petitioner, the valuation is vitiated by mala fides of the Head of the Department and the Refractionist, who are not parties to this writ petition. He also made an application for revaluation and that also was declined. It is in these circumstances the petitioner has approached this court, praying for a direction to the University to disclose the marks secured in each subjects in MS Ophalmology degree examination in June, 2010. Further prayer sought is to direct the respondents to revalue all the answer sheets of the petitioner based on the application made by him. There is also a prayer to WPC.No.27557 /2010 :2 : declare Ordinance 22 of the Kerala University First Ordinances 1978 as unconstitutional. 2. In so far as the prayer of the petitioner for revaluation is concerned, the right of the students to get the answer sheets revalued is governed by the Ordinance 22 of the Kerala University First Ordinances 1978. Admittedly, the Ordinance itself excludes from its purview Post Graduate Courses. If that be so, Post Graduate Students do not have the right to get their answer sheets revalued and in the absence of such a right, this court cannot direct revaluation of the answer papers. The issue in this connection is covered by the Apex Court judgment in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission V. Mukesh Thakur and Another (2010(6) SCC 759). In the light of the above, challenge against Ordinance 22 failed and the petitioner's prayer for a direction for revalue his answer sheets is only to be rejected. 3. I am also not persuaded to consider the petitioner's allegation of mala fides against the Head of the Department and the Refractionist for the reason that those officers are not made parties to the Writ petition. 4. Now what remains is the prayer of the petitioner to direct the University to disclose the marks secured by him in the final WPC.No.27557 /2010 :3 : year examination which he appeared in June, 2010. University has not shown to me any provision of the Ordinance disentitling a student from knowing his own marks or getting his answer papers. If that be so, the students have a right to know the details of the marks secured by them. 5. In that view of the matter, I direct the the 3rd respondent to disclose the marks secured by the petitioner in June, 2010 examination. This the 3rd respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 2 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. 6. Petitioner has yet another grievance about Ext.P1 series of answer papers which were disclosed to the petitioner in respondents to the application made by him under the Right to Information Act for the reason that the marks awarded to him have been scored off. According to the petitioner, if the marks awarded were correctly calculated he would have more marks than what has been now awarded. Therefore I direct that if the petitioner make a fresh application, copies of the answer sheets without scoring the marks secured shall be issued to the petitioner. WPC.No.27557 /2010 :4 : Petitioner shall produce a coy of the judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/