IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18891 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJESH V.K.,BAMS STUDENT, VAIDYARATNAM AYURVEDA COLLEGE, THAIKKATTUSSERY, OLLUR,THRISSUR DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KEERTHANAM, TRIKKOTTUR,THIKKOTTI P.O., KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUGATHAN SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR SRI.S.PRASANTH (AYYAPPANKAVU) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REP.BY THE REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O.-673635. 2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O.-673635. BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN - STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No.18891 of 2009 --------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a student of Vaidyaratnam Ayurveda College, Ollur for Ayurvedacharya (B.A.M.S). The college is affiliated to the Calicut University. The course consists of three professional terms of 1½ year duration each and an internship of 1 year. As per the Regulations of the University, a student can appear for the higher professional examination only if he has passed in all the subjects of the previous professional. The petitioner has passed in all the subjects for the 1st professional examination. He had written the 2nd professional examination conducted in January, 2008. But, when the result was published, the petitioner were declared failed in four papers. He appeared for the 2nd professional supplementary examination conducted in July, 2008. He failed in two subjects for which he again appeared in supplementary examination held in January, 2009. Again, he failed in one paper. Apparently, dissatisfied with the marks obtained by him, he had applied for revaluation of the two W.P.(C)No.18891 of 2009 :: 2 :: papers viz., Dravya Guna Vijnanam and Rogavijnanam & Vikritivijnanam. He is aggrieved that the results of the revaluation have not been published so far. 2. I heard learned standing counsel for the University also. There is no justification for the delay in the publication of results of revaluation sought for by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to publish the results of the revaluation sought for by the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of eight weeks from the last date for receipt of application for revaluation, provided the application for revaluation is in order and otherwise correct. Sd/- (V.GIRI) Judge sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge