IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 35790 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SIBI S.NAIR, PADMALAYALAM, S/O. SOMASEKHARAN, AYAMANAM, KOTTAYAM.P.O, PIN-686015. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M.G.UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR. ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.35790 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard both sides. Petitioner was a student of B. Sc Medical Radiological Technlogy during the academic year 1999-03. In the first year examination the petitioner failed in Maths and for internal assessment he was given 12 marks. It is stated that, for the failed subject the petitioner appeared along with the junior batch. It is also stated that he improved his internal assessment marks in Mathematics to 35. The benefit of improvement in internal assessment was not given to the petitioner for the reason that, according to the respondents, in terms of the regulations, there is no provision for improvement for internal assessment. 2. This stand of the University is sought to be contradicted by the petitioner in the reply affidavit filed by him, where in paragraph 3 he states that the same benefit has been given to certain other students. According to him, WP(c).No.35790/08 2 during 1998-01, the benefit was given to Sri. Siju, Sanoj. S.S and Shafeeq. It is also stated that during 1996-2000 the same benefit was extended to Sri.Premjith K.R and Shibu R. Nair. 3. Now that according to the petitioner, the benefit of improvement in the internal assessment has been given to other similarly situated students, if the said averment is factually correct, there is no reason why the benefit should be denied to the petitioner alone. 4. In any case, now that the petitioner has filed a representation in this behalf before the Vice Chancellor of the respondent University, I direct that Ext.P9 be considered and orders be passed thereon. It is directed that while orders are passed on Ext.P9, the case of the petitioner that the benefit of improvement in internal assessment granted has been granted to other students will be duly adverted to. Orders on Ext.P9 shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment and on that basis the results shall also be declared. WP(c).No.35790/08 3 Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) vi JUDGE