IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 26034 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. TIJO ISAC, CHITTELETTU HOUSE NEAR CHANJODY CHURCH, KOTTAMURI.P.O. CHANGANACHERRY KOTTAYAM DIST. 2. JIJO THOMAS KURIVILLA OTTAPALAEKAL HOUSE, JERUSALEM MOUNT PUTHENCHANTHA.P.O. VAKATHANAM, KOTTAYAM DIST. 3. TOM MATHEW, MUKKADA HOUSE, PERUMPANACHY.P.O., CHANGANACHERRY KOTTAYAM DIST. 4. MOHAMMED ANSAR.P. SALAM, OTTAKANDATHIL HOUSE, ARUPUZHA, THAZHATHANGADY.P.O. KOTTAYAM DIST. 5. BINU THAMPY, PATHIYIL HOUE, CHINGAVANAM.P.O. KOTTAYAM 686531. 6. FIDO BOSE MATHAI, ERAVIKULANGARA HOUSE CNI COMPOUND CHALUKUNNU,KOTTAYAM-686001. 7. SNAHA MERYN THOMAS, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE CHENGANNUR VILLAGE KOTTAYAM-689121. 8. TIBU GEORGE MATHEW PAYYAMPALLIL NJARAKOTTU HOUSE, MALLAPPALYNORTH.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689594. 9. SURAJ ABE THOMAS, VETTUPARAMBIL HOUSE SHANTHIPURAM.P.O., KARUKACHAL VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM-686545. 10. SHAROON.P.M. PADINJAREKKUTTE, SANTHIPURAM.P.O., NEDUNGADAPPALLY, KARUKANCHAL VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM-686545. BY ADV. SRI.B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.G.UNIVERSITY KOTTAYAM, REP. BY THE REGISTRAR. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, M.G.UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV.SHRI T.A.SHAJI (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 26034 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Sri. B.K.Gopalakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. T.A.Shaji, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Mahatma Gandhi University. 2. The petitioners appeared for the 8th semester B.Tech examination in different branches of Engineering held in May-June 2009 by the Mahatma Gandhi University. The results were declared in August 2009. They failed in some papers. The petitioners have therefore applied for revaluation of their answer scripts by submitting Exts.P1 to P10 applications. It is submitted that the applications were submitted in time and that the requisite fee has also been paid. The details of the papers in which the petitioners have sought revaluation are furnished in the form of a table at page 4 of this writ petition. The petitioners submit that if their answer scripts are revalued, they are sure to secure a pass and that unless their answer scripts are revalued expeditiously, their career prospects will be adversely affected. In this writ petition the petitioners seek a writ W.P.(C) No. 26034/09 2 in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to revalue their answer scripts and to communicate the results expeditiously and within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 3. Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Mahatma Gandhi University submits that petitioners' applications 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 petitioners' applications for revaluation will be considered and the answer scripts revalued, if their applications are in order, within the aforesaid period. 4. 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 applications for revaluation are W.P.(C) No. 26034/09 3 expeditiously disposed of, it will cause serious prejudice to the students. 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. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to complete the revaluation of the answer scripts described in Exts. P1 to P10 applications and to communicate the results to the petitioners within six weeks from the date on which the petitioners produce a certified copy of this judgment before the Controller of Examinations, Mahatma Gandhi University. The petitioners shall, in order to enable the respondents to act as directed above, produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition complete in all aspects, before the Controller of Examinations, Mahatma Gandhi University. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps W.P.(C) No. 26034/09 4