IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9637 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ASWIN K.M.,SAROVARAM, T.C.21/1528(1),NEDUMCAUD, KARAMANA P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 002. BY ADV. SRI.A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PANICKER SRI.T.P.DEYANANTHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.G.UNIVERSITY,KOTTAYAM. 2. VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. 3. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. BY SC SRI. T.A. SHAJIp THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.9637 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner was a B. Tech student in the Carmel Engineering College, Perinad, Ranni. In so far as the subject Signals and Systems, petitioner states that he was duly declared as passed. Subsequently, he was informed that he had failed for shortage of two marks. At this stage, petitioner states that he applied to the University for granting him grace mark and this writ petition has been filed on the basis that his request was pending consideration of the University. 2. Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent University submits that the request of the petitioner was considered by the Syndicate Sub Committee in the meeting held on 27.8.2008 and that the Syndicate examined the grievance and found that the initial WP(c).No.9637/09 /2/ declaration of result was erroneous. It is stated that the syndicate allowed the petitioner to write the examination once again and that availing of the said chance petitioner appeared in the examination and failed by securing only 12 marks out of of 100. It is stated that this was communicated to the petitioner on 13.10.2008. 3. From the facts disclosed by the Standing Counsel for the respondent University it can be seen that accepting that he had failed in the first examination, the petitioner appeared in the examination for a second time. If that be so, there is no question of directing the respondent University to award the petitioner to grace marks for the first examination, where the petitioner appeared and failed. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.9637/09 /2/