IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18743 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RINIMOL VARGHESE, KURUTTUKULATHIL HOUSE, POTHANICAD P.O., POTHANICAD, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM PIN-686560. ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY FOR RESPT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 18743 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 19th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was declared to have passed the Final Semester B. Tech. Examination in Computer Science and Engineering by the 1st respondent-University. She has also passed all previous semester examinations as per the results declared by the University. When she applied for the consolidated mark list and degree certificate by Ext. P2 application, the same were not issued to her. It is under the above circumstances, she has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent University to issue consolidated mark list and degree certificate for B.Tech. Degree examination applied for by the petitioner as per Ext. P2 forthwith; ii) Declare that denial/withholding the consolidated mark list and degree certificate for B.Tech. Degree examination which the petitioner passed as evidenced by Ext. P1 at this distance of time is illegal and unconstitutional.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein it is stated that the petitioner was declared to have been passed only on account of a mistake in adjusting moderation marks. According to them by that mistake the petitioner was given one additional mark in moderation, which the petitioner was not entitled to. The University therefore submits that the petitioner had not actually passed the examination and the only solution now possible is for granting permission to the petitioner to write a special examination to be conducted by the University without any fee. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the examination was conducted in December 2007 and the results were published in 25-3-2008 and it would be totally unjust to direct the W.P.C. No. 18743/2010. -: 2 :- petitioner to go through the process of studying again and undergoing another examination after almost 3 years, that too, for no fault of hers. If at all there is any mistake that is on the part of the respondents and, therefore, the petitioner should not be allowed to suffer because of the mistake, is her contention. The petitioner further relies on the decision of a learned Judge of this Court in Sajaikumar v. State of Kerala, 2003(3) KLT S.N. 62 (Case No. 84) in support of her case that on account of a mistake committed by he University, the candidate should not be allowed to suffer. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. The decision relied upon by the petitioner (Sajaikumar's case) as reported in the Short Notes, reads thus: “Facts remains that a mistake which was admittedly committed by the University was sought to be corrected after 4 years. The petitioner has acquired a right after obtaining the mark list. He having passed the examination, there was no necessity for him to reappear for the examination. It is true that if any mistake has been crept in awarding the grace marks, nothing stand in the way of the University for rectifying the mistake, but at the same time it should be done within a reasonable time as otherwise great hardship will be caused to the candidates if mistakes of such nature are sought to be rectified after long lapse of year. If the mistake was rectified within a reasonable time, the petitioner could have appeared for re-examination in the same paper. He has lost many chances in the meantime. Now even the syllabus has been changed, the petitioner cannot reappear for the examination even if he wanted. In such circumstances, there is clear estoppel on the part of he University to cancel the marks already awarded to the petitioner.” A reading of the said decision shows that the facts of this case are squarely covered by that decision. I am in respectful agreement with the law laid down in that decision. Therefore, the petitioner is W.P.C. No. 18743/2010. -: 3 :- entitled to succeed in this writ petition applying that decision to the facts of this case. Accordingly, there would be a direction to the respondents to issue the consolidated mark list and degree certificate as per the original marks awarded to the petitioner notwithstanding the mistake. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.