IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33244 of 2010(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- JAYAPRAKASH.K., S/O.M.C.BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, MUNDAYATH HOUSE, ADUTHILA.P.O., PAYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KANNUR UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 67031 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, KANNUR UNIVERSITY.67031 ADV. SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.33244 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 18th November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a First Grade Draftsman in the Kerala Water Authority. He completed part-time B.Tech (Civil) Course from Kannur Government Engineering College affiliated to the first respondent University. In the fifth semester examination, petitioner failed in the subject 'Software Engineering'. The answer paper was revalued and on revaluation there was no change in the marks. According to the petitioner, he obtained the answer papers and showed it to two experts who opined that he was entitled to better marks. It is stated that despite representations made to the University, the University did not take any action and therefore, this writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the University to get the answer papers valued by an expert and declare the results on that basis. 2. The University has filed a statement. According to the University, the original marks of the petitioner in Software Engineering was 25. The examiner who revalued the answer script is a teacher having nine W.P (C) No.33244 of 2010 2 years of experience and that on his valuation the marks which he awarded was lesser than what was originally awarded to the petitioner. It is stated that therefore petitioner was informed that there was no change in the marks. The University also says that there is no regulation providing for a further revaluation and therefore the request of the petitioner cannot be entertained. 3. It is the settled position of the law that revaluation is a matter which is entirely governed by the regulations of the University and a student has no independent right for the same. Admittedly, in terms of the regulations framed by the University, answer paper of the petitioner has been revalued and it has been found that there is no change in the marks. 4. On the materials available, I am not in a position to conclude that there is anything arbitrary and perverse in the aforesaid view taken by the University. In such circumstances, I am not in a position to grant any relief to the petitioner Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma