IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2009 / 22ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29013 of 2009(V) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. ARUN KAPPEN, S/O.JOSEPH J.KAPPEN, AGED 22 YEARS, KAPPIL HOUSE, MANAKAD P.O., THODUPUZHA. 2. JEFFREY SIMENTHY, S/O.VINCENT SIMENTHY, AGED 21 YEARS, MALLAMAI PARAMBIL HOUSE, L.M.PAILY CROSS ROAD, VYTTILA P.O., COCHN-682 019. 3. BABU.S.PULPEL, S/O.SASI.P.SEBASTIAN PULPEL (H) PULIMAVU, KANJIRAPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PINCODE-686 507. BY ADVS.MR.K.R.MICHAEL MR.FRANCIS JOSEPH KURISINKAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. R1 & R2 BY BY MR. T.A.SHAJI, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.29013 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners appeared for the 8th semester B.Tech Degree Examination in Mechanical Engineering conducted by Mahatma Gandhi University in May-June 2009. The results were published in August, 2009. The petitioners failed in various papers. They have therefore applied for revaluation of their answer scripts by submitting Exts.P1 to P3 applications. It is submitted that petitioners 1 and 2 have also applied for scrutiny of their answer scripts. The petitioners submit that they had done well in the examination and that they are sure to secure a pass, if their answer scripts are revalued. The petitioners also submit that they are desirous of seeking employment and unless their answer scripts are expeditiously revalued, they will be put to serious prejudice. In this writ petition, the petitioners seek a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to revalue their answer scripts and to publish the results expeditiously. Wpc 29013/2009 2 2. Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Mahatma Gandhi University submits that petitioner's answer scripts 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 petitioners' applications for revaluation will be considered and their answer scripts revalued, if their applications are in order, within the aforesaid period. As regards scrutiny of the answer scripts, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the scrutiny can be done within ten days from the date on which a copy of this judgment is received by the Mahatma Gandhi University. 3. 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 Wpc 29013/2009 3 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 University should not wait for the expiry of 81 clear days 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 scripts of the petitioners and to communicate the result to the petitioners within six weeks from the date on which the petitioners produce a certified copy of this judgment before the Controller of Examinations, Mahatma Gandhi University. The Controller of Examinations shall, within ten days from the date on which the petitioners produce a certified copy of this judgment before him, also make arrangements for scrutiny of the answer scripts referred to in Exts.P1 and P2, if applications for scrutiny have been filed in time and the requisite fee has been paid. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE lgk