IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 447 of 2009(C) ----------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. BEJOY.M.S.RAJ, AGED 24 YEARS, RUBY DALE, TC 20/1388(1),KUNJALUMMOODU, KARAMANA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-2. 2. JOHNSON BENNET, AGED 29 YEARS, ROSE DALE, J.P.J. NAGAR,HOUSE NO.144, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR. BABU KARUKAPADATH, ADVOCATE. MS.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU, ADVOCATE. MS.JAGAN GEORGE, ADVOCATE. MS.K.A.NOUSHAD, ADVOCATE. MR.P.G.PRAMOD, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS, PALAYAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS, PALAYAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.447 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are LLB students. They appeared for the examination held in April, 2008. The 1st petitioner appeared for all the 4 subjects and the 2nd petitioner, for 3 subjects. They were declared as failed in the examination. Therefore, they applied for revaluation of the answer papers. It is stated that after revaluation, the University intimated them that there were no change in the marks. The results were declared on 19/11/2008. 2. Thereafter, when by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act they applied to the University, they were issued Ext.P6. In Ext.P6, it is stated that the answer books of the candidates were given for valuation on 18/11/2008 and was returned on 20/11/2008. Relying on this statement in Ext.P6, it is contended that there could not have any revaluation of their answer papers when the results were declared on 19/11/2008. 3. In view of the contradiction as seen in Ext.P6, the respondents were directed to file a statement. In the statement filed, WP(C) No.447/2009 -2- paragraph 5 reads as under :- “5. The question papers have been received in Revaluation Section from the question paper room on 18/11/2008 and it was forwarded to the examiners through Special Messenger on 18/11/2008 in the forenoon itself. The examiners returned the answer scripts together with mark sheets after revaluation on 19/11/2008 and results were complied on that day itself and Exhibits.P3 and P4 memos were sent to the petitioners on that day itself. Copies of the Green Sheet of Revaluation returned by the examiners on 19/12/2008 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit.R1(c) series. The marks portion is blotted since it is confidential.” Proceeding further, it is stated that the date 20/11/2006 shown in Ext.P6 is a mistake. 4. Nothing has been placed on record to conclude that what is stated by the University in the statement to the above effect is factually incorrect. If as a matter of fact a mistake has been committed, the very basis of the petitioners case is lost. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg