IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 30606 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- RESMI.N.C., LAKSHMI HOUSE, PO.KANNIKULA- NGARA, PUTHENCHIRA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.M.ANEESH RESPONDENTS: -------------------- 1. CALICUT UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, PARIKSHA BHAVAN, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, THENJIPPALAM. BY SC SRI.P.C. SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.30606 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 31st October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner had prosecuted a B.Tech course from the Institute of Engineering and Technology, University Campus, Calicut. According to her, the marks awarded to her in one of the papers in 4th Semester Examination was inadequate and therefore she sought for revaluation of the same. She was awarded only 59% marks. Therefore, she sought for revaluation with a hope that additional one mark would enable her to be treated as having passed out in First Class. Later, after completion of the B.Tech course, petitioner joined the Masters’ Degree in Anna University in Chennai where she is continuing to prosecute her studies. She sought for permission to appear in the 4th semester examination again. This request was rejected vide Exhibit P4 finding that petitioner is already undergoing M.Tech course. This writ petition was filed essentially seeking the following W.P ( C) No.30606 of 2008 2 relief: “a) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction and direct the respondents to revalue the answer sheets of the petitioner in Engineering Mathematics (EC2K 401), Pulse Circuit (EC2K 402), Electronic Circuits (EC2K 404) and Micro Processors & Micro Controllers (EC2K 405) of 4th semester examination of B.Tech and publish the same forthwith.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents. Paragraphs,3,4 and 5 of the said counter affidavit reads as follows: “3. It is submitted that the petitioner has made an application for revaluation of 4 papers of B.Tech IV Semester June 2005 examination viz EC 2K 401, 402 404 and 405. The University revalued the answer sheets of the petitioner except EC 2K 401 and the results communicated to the petitioner. It is submitted that the revaluation in relation to the answer script of EC 2K 401 could not be conducted by the University since it could not be traced out and this fact was intimated to the petitioner as well. W.P ( C) No.30606 of 2008 3 4. It is submitted that the petitioner was an average student scored marks of 41, 33, 40 and 41 out of 100 respectively for the 4 papers applied for revaluation. In 3 papers revalued there is no change as well. The petitioner is presently completed M.Tech course as well. 5. It is submitted that the relief sought for by the petitioner to revalue the answer scripts of the paper EC 2K 401 is not practically possible since it could not be traced out. At this belated stage the petitioner cannot seek revaluation of the answer scripts and publcation of the results since the mark list already been published on 07/01/2006 and the application for revaluation submitted on 12/01/2006. At this distance of time it could not be practically possible for the University to trace out the answer scripts and conduct revaluation.” 3. No doubt, the answer sheets in its entirety of any student ought to be retained by the University at least for a period of two years. But I am not inclined to further proceed with this matter in circumstances where the petitioner cannot be considered as seriously aggrieved by the inability on the part of the University to revalue one of her answer scripts. I also take note of the fact that the petitioner had sought revaluation of four papers in the 4th semester examination and in respect of three of the papers, W.P ( C) No.30606 of 2008 4 the revaluation did not yield any improved marks for the petitioner. Petitioner is prosecuting M.Tech course and the difference of one mark, which she claims, will enable her to be treated as having passed the B.Tech course in First Class may not make much of difference either in the prosecution of further studies or in her career. If the petitioner has been consistent in performing well in all other examinations and true to her claim she is also doing well in M.Tech degree then it will always be open to her to point out the lack of one mark in one of the papers as an aberration for which she is not responsible. I am sure that respondents authority/official/institution would view the same with the seriousness and sincerity with which petitioner advances her claim. Subject to the above the writ petition is closed. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.30606 of 2008 5 W.P ( C) No.30606 of 2008 6