IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 26TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 26249 of 2009(A) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- DEEPAK MENON, S/O.J.P.MENON, AGED 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT 916, SECTOR 37, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH. BY ADV. MR.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CALICUT UNIVERSITY, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 &R2 BY ADV. MR. P.V. SASIDHARAN, SC, UTY OF CLT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2009 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.26262 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos. 26249 & 26262 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Sri. T.Madhu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. P.C.Sasidharan, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Calicut University. Since the issues involved in these writ petitions are similar, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 26249 of 2009 was a student of MES College of Engineering, Kuttipuram, a college affiliated to the University of Calicut, for the B.Tech degree course in Computer Science and Engineering. The petitioner failed in his maiden attempt in the sixth semester examination. He therefore appeared for the sixth semester supplementary examination held by the University of Calicut in December 2008. The results were published in August 2009. The petitioner had in the meanwhile appeared for and passed the other semester examinations. He has also completed his course. When the results of the sixth semester supplementary examination were published in August 2009, the petitioner failed in two papers namely “Date Base Management W.P.(C) Nos. 26249 & 26262 /09 2 Systems” and “Graph Theory and Combinatorics”. The petitioner therefore applied for revaluation of his answer scripts in “Date Base Management Systems” and “Graph Theory and Combinatorics” by submitting the original of Ext.P1 application dated 5.9.2009. It is stated therein that a fee of Rs.500/- has also been paid. He submits that if his answer scripts in “Date Base Management Systems” and “Graph Theory and Combinatorics” are revalued, he is sure to secure a pass. He also submits that he has been selected for admission to the MBA course and that he has time till 30.10.2009 to produce the mark lists and the degree certificate. The petitioner has in para 5 of the writ petition stated that in the normal course, revaluation will be conduced and results declared only after a long delay. In this writ petition, he seeks a direction to the University of Calicut to revalue his answer scripts expeditiously. 3. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 26262 of 2009 was a student of AWH College of Engineering, Calicut, a college affiliated to the University of Calicut, for the B.Tech degree course in Computer Science and Engineering. The petitioner failed in his maiden attempt in the fourth semester examination. He therefore appeared for the fourth semester supplementary examination held by the University of W.P.(C) Nos. 26249 & 26262 /09 3 Calicut in December 2008. The results were published in August 2009. The petitioner had in the meanwhile appeared for and passed the other semester examinations. He has also completed his course. When the results of the fourth semester supplementary examination were declared in August 2009, the petitioner failed in one paper namely “Systems Programming”. The petitioner therefore applied for revaluation of his answer script in “Systems Programming” by submitting the original of Ext.P1 application dated 29.8.2009. It is stated that the fee prescribed, has been paid. The petitioner submits that if his answer script in “Systems Programming” is revalued, he is sure to secure a pass, which will enable him to obtain employment. It is stated that he had availed a loan for his education and if he gets a job he can repay the loan in time. In these circumstances, the petitioner prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to revalue his answer script in Systems Programming and to communicate the results to him within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 4. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Calicut University submits that the petitioners' applications for revaluation are dated 5.9.2009 and 29.8.2009 and as there has been W.P.(C) Nos. 26249 & 26262 /09 4 no delay in the disposal of the applications for revaluation these writ petitions seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus, are not maintainable. He submits that the petitioners who have applied for revaluation of their answer scripts in respect of papers for which they had appeared in the supplementary examinations had earlier chances to appear in the fourth and sixth semester examinations. It is contended that the petitioners who are failed candidates and had four chances to clear the backlog, cannot seek expeditious revaluation of their answer scripts in respect of the papers for which they had appeared in the fourth and sixth semester supplementary examinations. The learned standing counsel also submitted that the general direction being issued by this Court in other cases to revalue answer scripts and to communicate the results to candidates within 8 weeks, cannot therefore be applied in the cases on hand. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. Ordinance 23 in Chapter V of the Calicut University First Ordinances, 1978 enables candidates of all examinations including diploma examinations to apply for revaluation. Therefore, the petitioners have a right to apply for revaluation of their answer scripts. Since the petitioners have a W.P.(C) Nos. 26249 & 26262 /09 5 right available to them under the Calicut University First Ordinances 1978, they are entitled to have their answer scripts revalued by the University of Calicut. The Ordinances do not make a distinction between students who have applied for revaluation of answer scripts of supplementary examinations and students who have applied for revaluation of answer scripts in their maiden appearance. The Calicut University First Ordinances, 1978, treats all students alike and confers on them the same right to apply for revaluation. Therefore, I overrule the contention of the learned standing counsel appearing for the Calicut University that as the petitioners appeared for supplementary examinations, they are not entitled to have their answer scripts revalued expeditiously. 6. A Division Bench of this Court has in University of Kerala v. Sandhya P.Pai (1992 (1) KLT 812) stressed upon the need for Universities to expeditiously dispose of applications for revaluation. It was held that if applications for revaluation are not disposed of expeditiously, the students will be put to serious prejudice. I am therefore of the considered opinion that notwithstanding the fact that the applications for revaluation were filed only on 5.9.2009 and 29.8.2009, in the interests of the students concerned, the University W.P.(C) Nos. 26249 & 26262 /09 6 should, if their applications are in order, endeavour to have their answer scripts revalued expeditiously and to communicate the results to them. 7. It is clear from Section 5 of the Calicut University Act that the purpose for which the University of Calicut has been established is to award degrees and diplomas and other academic distinctions to students who pass out of Colleges and Universities. The purpose of establishment of the University of Calicut is therefore to cater to the needs of students pursuing their studies in University departments and affiliated Colleges. In my opinion, the endeavour of the University should be to advance the cause of students rather than to stand on technicalities. If the welfare of the student community is not in the forefront of the affairs of Universities, the student community will be put to serious prejudice. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 26249 of 2009 has stated that he has been offered admission for the MBA course in Lucknow and that he has time till 30.10.2009 to produce proof of having passed the B.Tech degree examination. The petitioner in the other writ petition has stated that he has to repay the education loan taken for the purpose of his studies and that if he secures a pass on revaluation, he can get employment which in turn W.P.(C) Nos. 26249 & 26262 /09 7 will help him to repay the loan. As far as students are concerned, it cannot be said that these aspirations are not legitimate. 8. A student who is good at his studies, may due to various reasons fail in one paper or an examination. The reason for failure can also be improper valuation, for which the student cannot be blamed. The very concept of revaluation has been evolved due to this reason. The provision for revaluation is therefore one conceived in the interests of the student community. That right cannot be denied on the grounds raised by the learned standing counsel for the University of Calicut. Failure in an examination should not be frowned upon by those concerned with imparting of education. Their endeavour should be to encourage students who fail in examinations to perform better and not to adopt a step motherly attitude. Further, all that the petitioners seek is expeditious revaluation of their answer scripts. They are not asking the University to award them marks disproportionate to their performance or to declare that they have passed the examination. I therefore hold that notwithstanding the fact that what the petitioners seek is revaluation of their answer scripts in respect of papers for which they had appeared in the supplementary examinations, they are not liable to be treated W.P.(C) Nos. 26249 & 26262 /09 8 differently from the rest of the students who have passed their examinations in the maiden attempt. I, accordingly dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions. The respondents shall within one week from the date on which the petitioners produce a certified copy of this judgment before the Controller of Examinations, University of Calicut, process their applications for revaluation and if they are in order, take steps to have their answer scripts revalued and to communicate the results to them within a period of seven weeks thereafter. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps W.P.(C) Nos. 26249 & 26262 /09 9