IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 W.P(C).No. 19119 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ BINJU C.K., CHARAMEL HOUSE, GANDHI NAGAR P.O., KOTTAYAM - 8. BY ADV. SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNON SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. M.G.UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, M.G.UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. 3. PRINCIPAL AND CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT, ST.JOSEPH'S TRAINING COLLEGE, MANNANAM. 4. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, M.G.UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. BY SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G UNIVERSITY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: scm S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.19119 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner joined B.Ed degree course of the MG University, Kottayam in the year 2005-2006. The petitioner did not pass the examination. The petitioner appeared for the supplementary examination. By that time the scheme of examination has changed. The petitioner applied for writing the examination under the old scheme. The supplementary examination was conducted along with the regular examination of students who were writing the examination under new scheme. The petitioner was given a question paper for a particular subject which the petitioner answered. Later on, it turned out that the question paper which the petitioner answered was question paper intended for the regular students under the new scheme and not a question paper intended for supplementary examination under the old scheme. That answer paper was not valued and the petitioner was directed to write the examination again by Ext.P5 memorandum. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: W.P(C)No.19119 of 2008 - 2 - i) issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Exhibit P5 and to quash the same. ii) issue a direction to first and second respondent to value Group I Paper I Philosophical & Sociological Bases of Education paper written by the petitioner in August 2007 with Hall Ticket No.121451 and to award pass marks to the petitioner. iii) issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to the decision taken by the first respondent with respect to Exhibit P6 representation submitted by the petitioner and to quash the same. iv) issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to declare the results of the petitioner of Group I papers for B.Ed exam written by the petitioner in August 2007 with hall ticket no. 121451.” 2. The University has filed a counter affidavit, in which they admit that the petitioner was wrongly given a question paper under the new scheme by the centre where the examination was conducted. They would submit that the negligence if any, is on the part of the examination centre and not of the University. According to them, since the petitioner has answered the question paper which was not intended for her examination, the University cannot be directed to value the answer paper for the wrong examination and to declare results thereof. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I am of opinion that, in so far as the petitioner has not W.P(C)No.19119 of 2008 - 3 - answered the question paper of the examination which he was expected to pass, there would be no justification for me to direct the University to value that answer paper and consider the same as answer paper for the petitioner's examination. If the petitioner has a grievance against negligence on at the part of either the examination centre or the University, the petitioner can seek only a damages for such negligence which has to be by filing a suit for the purpose. Therefore without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs