IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2010 / 28TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 32145 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.R.AKHIL RAJ, KALATHIL HOUSE, P.O.KALAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. RENO RAJ, PULIYEZATHU HOUSE, CHETTIKKAD, P.O.PATHIRAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. DAMU V.DEV, THAYIL HOUSE, P.O.NORTH ARYAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. ANTONY DEXTER D'MORRIS, D&D DALE, ASHRAMAM WARD 5, P.O.AVALOOKUNNU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. SHAFEEK R., DARUL FALAH, P.O.KAKKAZHOM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 32145 of 2010 P ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 20th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are B.Com students of a College affiliated to the first respondent University. They appeared for the 6th semester examination held in March, 2010. In so far as this writ petition is concerned, their grievance is regarding the subject, Corporate Tax. According to the petitioners, many of the questions were from out of the syllabus and, therefore, while evaluating the answer papers, those questions should be excluded. It is seen that with the above request, petitioners have filed Ext.P5 series of representations before the second respondent. In this writ petition, what is sought for is a direction for consideration of the representations. 2. I heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University also. 3. Although the learned Standing Counsel has disputed the claim of the petitioners that the questions were W.P.(C) No.32145/10 : 2 : out of syllabus, having regard to the fact that this grievance has already been raised before the second respondent, I feel it is appropriate that the second respondent shall consider the representations filed by the petitioners. This, the second respondent shall do, at any rate, within eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. 4. Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment and writ petition before the second respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks