IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5045 of 2011(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ KRISHNA PRABHA.M.S, KANJIRAPADATH HOUSE, NAVODHAYA NORTH, VADACODE.P.O, KOCHI-682021. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA,KOTTAYAM-686562. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA,KOTTAYAM-686562. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.5045 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 16th March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has approached this Court seeking for revaluation of the answer papers, as the petitioner has turned to be unsuccessful in the subjects concerned. The sequence of events narrated in the writ petition shows that the petitioner was a post graduate student for M.Sc Mathematics for the year 2006-2008. She attended IIIrd semester supplementary examination and failed in three subjects viz., '(i) Functional Analysis, II, (ii) Differential Geometry and (iii) Optimization Technique' which were sought to be revalued. When the result did not turn to be fruitful, she has sought for further revaluation and also to permit the petitioner to identify the answer papers; which forms the issue in the present writ petition. 2. The respondent University has filed a statement pointing out that the idea and understanding of the petitioner is thoroughly wrong and misconceived and that the relief sought for is not liable to be entertained. The stand of the University is discernible from the contents of W.P (C) No. 5045 of 2011 2 Paragraphs 4 to 7 which are extracted below (though the paragraphs have been wrongly numbered). "4. The results of third semester M.Sc Mathematics examinations held in January 2009 taken by the petitioner (with Register No.79545) was published. The petitioner applied for revaluation of three papers namely Functional Analysis II, Differential Geometry and Optimization Technique on 9.10.2009 for which she had scored 26/75, 13/75 and 22/75 marks respectively. 4. Her answer scripts of Functional Analysis II, (false No.21141) Differential Geometry ( false No.21874) and Optimization Technique (false No.22672) have been revalued and the results were released on 4.1.2010. She had scored 30/75, 18/75 and 26/75 marks respectively, after revaluation. 5. As per the clause 8.6/20 of Chapter 8 of the examination manual, no complaints shall be entertained once the revaluation result has been finalized and communicated to the candidate. Only those candidates, who are not eligible for a change in marks as a result of revaluation, shall be permitted to identify their answer scripts. 6. The request of the petitioner for identification of answer script with a change of result after revaluation and also her request for further revaluation is, therefore, not entertainable as per the rules. There is no provision for any further revaluation. The dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in West Bengal Council of higher secondary Education Vs. Ayan Das reported in 2007 (4) W.P (C) No. 5045 of 2011 3 KLT 535 is applicable in the case. 7.As per U.O No.2457/A1/2010/Academic, dated 20.5.2010 the syndicate standing committee on examinations has resolved as follows: (i) documents viz., answer scripts, applications and copies of revaluation memos except those relating to court cases, RTI applications and any other documents in which legal issues are pending may be disposed of after a period of four months from the date of release of the revaluation results. (ii) the revaluation sections may be directed to maintain a register for recording the details of examinations, register number and false numbers of the answer scripts disposed of. 3. As pointed out by the University, by virtue of clause 8.6/20 of Chapter 8 of the Examination Manual, no complaints can be entertained once the revaluation results have been finalized and communicated to the candidate. Only those candidates who are not eligible for a change in marks as a result of revaluation, shall be permitted to identify their answer scripts. There is no challenge against the said clause in the writ petition. W.P (C) No. 5045 of 2011 4 4. In the said circumstance, this Court finds it difficult to accept the version of the petitioner. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge