IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26809 of 2009(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SREEJITH S, S/O.SUKUMARA PANICKER, AGED 23 YEARS, KADOOR, KOTTANGAL P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.MEDONA LOPEZ. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. R1 & R2 BY MR. T.A. SHAJI, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 26809 of 2009 - U ---------------------------------------- Dated 24th September, 2009 Judgment Heard Smt.Medona Lopez, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Mahatma Gandhi University. 2. The petitioner appeared for the eighth semester B.Tech. degree examination in Computer Science and Engineering conducted by the Mahatma Gandhi University in May/June, 2009. The results were published in August, 2009. The petitioner failed in the paper 'Artificial Intelligence'. He has therefore applied for revaluation of his answer script as per Ext.P2 application dated 10.9.2009. He has also paid the requisite fee. The petitioner submits that he has passed all the semester examinations and that if his answer script in 'Artificial Intelligence' is revalued, he is sure to secure a pass. He further submits that he has been offered appointment in Infosys Technologies Limited and that in such circumstances unless his answer script in 'Artificial Intelligence' is revalued and the results communicated to him expeditiously, he will be put to serious prejudice. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks W.P.(C) No.26809/2009 2 a direction to the respondents to revalue his answer script in 'Artificial Intelligence' and to communicate the result expeditiously. 3. Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Mahatma Gandhi University submits that petitioner's answer script cannot be singled out and revalued as it will lead to loss of confidentiality. He also submits that as per the Examination Manual, the University requires 81 clear days from the date of publication of the results to complete the revaluation process. He further submits that the petitioner's application for revaluation will be considered and his answer script revalued, if the application is in order, within the aforesaid period. 4. The Examination Manual is not a statutory regulation. It is a Manual prepared by the University for its guidance. The stipulations in the Examination Manual cannot, in my opinion, operate to the detriment of students. A Division Bench of this Court has in University of Kerala v. Sandhya P. Pai (1991 (1) KLT 812) held that the University should hurry with applications for revaluation without wasting any time and that unless applications for revaluation are expeditiously disposed of, it will cause serious prejudice to the students. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the University should not wait for the expiry of 81 clear days W.P.(C) No.26809/2009 3 from the date of publication of the results to complete the revaluation process. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to complete the revaluation of the answer script described in Ext.P2 application and to communicate the results to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall, in order to enable the University to act as directed above, produce a certified copy of this judgment before the Controller of Examinations, Mahatma Gandhi University. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa