IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26935 of 2009(J) ------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- MANSOOR.N.M, S/O.N.B.MAKKAR, AGED 21 YEARS, RESIDING AT NADUKUDIYIL HOUSE, P.O.MANIKKINAR, PAIMATTOM-686 693, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY MR.V.A.MUHAMMED, ADVOCATE. MR.M.SAJJAD, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 560. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, M.G.UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILL P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 560. BY MR. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G. UNIVERISTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26935 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.V.A.Muhammed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Mahatma Gandhi University. 2. The petitioner appeared for the eighth semester B.Tech Degree Examination in Electronics and Communication Engineering conducted by the Mahatma Gandhi University in May/June 2009. The petitioner passed the eighth semester examination. He is however aggrieved by the marks awarded to him in various papers. The petitioner has therefore applied for revaluation of his answer scripts in six subjects by submitting Exhibit P1 application. 3. The petitioner submits that he had done well in the examination and was expecting better marks. He also submits that unless this Court interferes and directs expeditious revaluation, there is likely to be considerable delay in the W.P.(C) No.26935/2009 2 revaluation of his answer scripts. On this ground, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to revalue his answer scripts expeditiously. 4. 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 petitioner's application for revaluation will be considered and the answer scripts revalued, if the application is in order, within the aforesaid period. 5. 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 revaluation without wasting any time and that unless W.P.(C) No.26935/2009 3 applications for revaluation are expeditiously disposed of, it will cause serious prejudice to the stwudents. 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. Further, the petitioner has already passed the eighth semester examination. He has applied for revaluation with a view to better his marks. For that reason also, I am of the opinion that the University should revalue his answer scripts expeditiously. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to complete the revaluation of the answer scripts described in Exhibit P1 and to communicate the results to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. P.N. RAVINDRAN JUDGE smp