IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 34441 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- TOM PHILIP S/O.N.T.PHILIP, NEDUMPOIKAYIL HOUSE,MEENADOM P.O. KOTTAYAM 686516 BY ADV. SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMILLI P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS,ATHIRAMPILLI P.O.KOTTAYAM DIST. BY SC SRI.T.A.SHAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).34441/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 21st day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner appeared for the B.Com Final year examination in March, 2007. He failed to secure requisite marks for paper IX 'Corporate Accounting', he having secured only 26 out of 80. He applied for re-valuation as per Ext.P2 that was after eight months. It seems that the revaluation also did not result in improvement of the petitioner’s marks. Petitioner submits that since he was waiting for the revaluation results, he did not appear for the supplementary examination. Petitioner is aggrieved by the results of the revaluation of paper IX. When it was found that that there is no change in the marks on revaluation, petitioner has now sought for a second revaluation as per Ext.P6 representation. Writ petition is filed praying for the following reliefs. (i). Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order W.P.(C).34441/2008 2 directing respondents to produce the original mark sheet containing individual marks given to each question in respect of paper IX, Corporate Accounting, at the time of revaluation. (ii). Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order and direct the respondents to conduct another revaluation of Paper IX, Corporate Accounting, by another independent Examiner appointed by this Honourable Court within two weeks. 2. I heard Mr.M.Chandrabose, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.A.Shaji, learned Standing Counsel for the University. 3. Mr.Shaji refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court in West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education vs. Ayan Das (2007 (4) KLT 535 [SC]). The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows. W.P.(C).34441/2008 3 “The Courts normally should not direct the production of answer scripts to be inspected by the Writ Petitioners unless a case is made out to show that either some question has not been evaluated or that the evaluation has been done contrary to the norms fixed by the examining body. 4. In my view, no extraordinary circumstances are made out in the present case to warrant a direction to the University to produce the answer sheet. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Ext.P7 judgment of a learned Judge of this Court. A perusal of Ext.P7 judgment would show that this Court discerned extraordinary circumstances in the said case, taking note of the fact that the student in question, stated to have secured less than pass marks in the said paper was noted as having secured 91 in the earlier semester examination. No such extraordinary facts are revealed in the present case. Writ petition is bereft of merit and W.P.(C).34441/2008 4 hence the same is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs