IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 9246 of 2010(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SANGEETHA P.G. PAREECKAL HOUSE, IRUMPANAM P.O.,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.S.RAJ MOHAN SMT.J.DEEPTHI ROSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR,MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, RLV COLLEGE OF MUSIC AND FINE ARTS, TRIPUNITHURA. ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 9246 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 10th day of August, 2010. The petitioner is a student of M.A Mohiniyattom of the 3rd respondent's college. She appeared for the first year M.A examination for theory papers, but and could not attend the practicals due to reasons beyond her control. She completed the course. According to the petitioner, the petitioner registered for the first and second year examinations of the course together, in 2008. She wrote the first and second year theory examinations. She appeared for the practical examinations for first and second year also. The results were declared for M.A. Mohiniyattom pursuant to the said examination, but the result of the petitioner was withheld. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has issued Ext. P3 communication stating that the petitioner's answer papers were forwarded to the University. The Chairman of the Examination Board, by Ext. P6, informed the 2nd respondent that the petitioner had appeared for the practical examination and her mark list was forwarded to the University. Despite the same, the petitioner's results are not declared is the petitioner's grievance in this writ petition. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “1. Call for the records connected with the case. 2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the first and second respondents to publish the result of the petitioner for the first year M.A. Mohiniyattom examination conducted during June and November, 2008. 3. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the first and second respondents to publish the result of the petitioner for the second year M.A. Mohiniyattom examination conducted during June and November, 2008 on production of the degree certificate of the B.A. Mohiniyattom examination. 4. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, W.P.C. No. 9246/10 -: 2 :- order or direction directing the first respondent to conduct and enquiry or investigation in to this matter and to book the real culprits in this matter and to proceed against them in accordance with law. 5. Direct the first respondent to pay compensation to the petitioner for the malfeasance and nonfeasance on the part of the University in not publishing the results of a candidate who had appeared for the examination, by saying that she had not even registered for the examination.” 2. In view of the averments of the petitioner, I passed the following order on 30-6-2010: “Standing counsel shall verify whether as stated in Ext. P3, answer papers of the petitioner for the 1st M.A. Mohiniyattom Paper I and 1st M.A. History of Mohiniyattom Paper II have been received. Standing counsel shall also ascertain whether the marks of practical examination for the first year M.A. Mohiniyattom papers have been received from the Chairman of the Board of Examinations as stated in Ext. P8.” 3. In answer to the contentions of the petitioner, the standing counsel for the University submits that “the valued marks of answer papers of 1st M.A Mohiniyattom supplementary examination held in June 2008 in respect of Sangeetha P.G (paper I Contribution and Tradition of Mohiniyattom, paper II – History of Mohiniyattom) and practical marks of 1st year M.A Mohiniyattom examination have been received in this section with Register No. 33684, the number allotted to her for her first appearance for the 1st year regular examination held in June, 2007. She was absent for the practical examination held in June 2007 and appeared for the theory paper only and passed papers I and II. She had not registered for the 1st year M.A supplementary examination held in June, 2008.” 4. I have considered the contentions of both parties. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner has been issued Ext. P2 hall ticket for the 2008 examination, wherein the petitioner was authorised to W.P.C. No. 9246/10 -: 3 :- write the examinations for both years together. Of course, the learned standing counsel for the University would take a contention that the petitioner had not registered for the first year examination, but had registered only for the second year examination. But no valid explanation is forthcoming as to how Ext. P2 hall ticket could have been issued to the petitioner for writing both years' examinations. The contention of the University is that it is the petitioner herself who filled up the space for the subjects of the examinations, in which she unauthorizedly filled up both years' subjects. If that be so, the University could have very well refused to issue the hall ticket. In all hall tickets, the subjects of examinations are filled up by the candidates and are forwarded to the University. The University approves, signs and seals the same before forwarding to the colleges for issue. Here, the University has approved the subjects filled up by the petitioner and issued the hall tickets. Since, it is only on the strength of that hall ticket, the college allowed the petitioner to write both years' examinations, I do not think that the petitioner should be deprived of the benefit of the examination written by her. Accordingly, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to publish the results of the petitioner's examinations for both years as if she had written the examination validly. This shall be done within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.