IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 W.A.No.419 of 2008 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).33796/2007 DATED 16/11/2007 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER IN WP(C):- ---------------------------------------------------- SAJIMON.M.T., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.C.P.THANKAPPAN, MANNARATH HOUSE, PONKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM SMT.K.P.AMBIKA SRI.THOMSTINE K.AUGUSTINE SRI.C.N.GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN WP(C):- --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, M.G.UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, M.G.UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM. R1 TO R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.T.A.SHAJI. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.419 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 30th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. The appellant completed his Post Graduate course in M.Sc. (Mathematics) from S.V.R.N.S.S.College, Vazhoor which is affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University, in 2001. He wrote supplementary examinations conducted by the University in some of the papers in 2004 for betterment of marks obtained by him in the earlier examination. But still he did not get the marks which he expected. Therefore he filed the writ petition praying for issue of a writ of mandamus or such other order or direction to respondents 1 to 3 to value his answer scripts in Algebra-Paper I, Topology Paper-III and Differential Equation-Paper IV “by an outside expert” in the subjects concerned and to declare the results within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. Since the other prayers in the writ petition are only ancillary and incidental to the above prayer, we do not deem it necessary to refer to them at this stage. 2. The appellant was awarded only 618 marks which, according to him, were totally disproportionate and too low as compared to his performance in the three papers in question. The appellant had approached the Lok Ayukta in 2006 after failing in his attempt to get his papers revalued. It W.A.No.419 of 2008 2 was contended by the University before the Lok Ayukta that the answer scripts of the appellant were subjected to double valuation in terms of the Regulations. Under the Double Valuation Scheme the paper valued by the first examiner would be valued by the second examiner and the average marks awarded in the valuation would be assigned to the candidate. The paper will be further subjected to third valuation by the Chairman if the difference between the marks awarded by the first and second valuer is more than 10%. According to the appellant, the University in its statement filed before the Lok Ayukta had contended that the papers had been valued for the third time by the Chairman of the Examination Board. But the Chairman was not an expert in the three subjects concerned. It was in the above circumstances that the appellant had preferred the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned Single Judge repelled the contentions raised by the appellant and held that the claim made by him to get his papers valued by an outside agency cannot be sustained in any view of the matter, particularly in the absence of any provision in the Regulations enabling such valuation. 4. It is contended before us on behalf of the appellant that the Chairman of the Examination Board had no expertise in the three subjects concerned, namely Algebra, Topology and Differential Equation. However, in the statement filed by the University before us it is categorically asserted that the Chairman, Smt.Rosamma Mathews, who was the Head of the W.A.No.419 of 2008 3 Department of Mathematics in St.Aloysious College, Edathua had 30 years' teaching experience to her credit . She is a Post Graduate in Mathematics. 5. It is pertinent to note that the appellant does not have a case that the Regulations of the University governing the field permits him to get his papers valued by an outside agency. More importantly, it is the admitted position that his papers were valued by three valuers, and on the last occasion by the Chairman of the Examination Board, who were experts in the subject. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to a decision of Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and another v. D.Suvankar and another, (2007) 1 SCC 603, in support of his contention that the examiners to be appointed for a particular subject should belong to the same stream. As mentioned earlier, it is on record that the Professor who chaired the Examination Board had been teaching Mathematics for the last 30 years. The other two valuers were also teaching in the same faculty. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Chairman was not an expert in the field in question. In that view of the matter the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot have any relevance in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. It is also pertinent to note that the complaint filed by the appellant before the Lok Ayukta was dismissed for default in August, 2006, and that too after the University had produced the answer scripts for scrutiny at W.A.No.419 of 2008 4 the request of the appellant. Appellant did not pursue the matter before Lok Ayukta thereafter. He filed the writ petition only in November, 2007. 8. Having perused the materials available on record as well as the impugned order, we do not find any reason to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in the writ appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns