IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 24975 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VIJU M.PILLAI, S/O.VISHWAMBHARAN, AGED RESIDING IN 'VISWALAYAM', C.M.C. 18, CHERTHALA P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.D.PREM KAMATH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY UNION COLLEGE, ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 560. ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.24975 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 6th November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner sought for revaluation of his answer scripts, relating to the examination for the papers in Computer Graphics and System Software forming part of the MCA course prosecuted by him during the year 2005- 06. Petitioner’s allegation was that there was no attempt on the part of the University to revalue the answer papers in spite of lapse of more than 18 months and it was only after repeated representations that was given a reply stating that on revaluation his marks have not undergone any improvement. This has been challenged in the writ petition. 2. A statement has been filed by the counsel for the University. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said statement reads as follows: “6. It is submitted that recording marks on each and every page of the answer script is the old system in valuation/revaluation. Valuation and revaluation are conducted by W.P ( C) No.24975 of 2008 2 competent examiners from a Board of Examiners constituted as per rules, who, after conducting the valuation, record the marks on a separate sheet attached to the answer script. The mark awarded to each question can be noticed from the facing sheet of Ext.P5. The apprehensions expressed by the petitioner are devoid of any merit or substance. 7. Valuation and revaluation are conducted by competent and experienced examiners. The allegations of improper valuation and revaluation are baseless. It seems that such allegations are raised out of sheet ignorance. The petitioner has identified his answer script and he put his signature on the answer script in token of identifying the same. He never raised any complaint. It is submitted that in the absence of any rules or regulations enabling a third valuation the petitioner is not entitled to seek for any such reliefs. It is the settled position of law. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Alpana V. Metha Vs. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education and another [1984 (4) SCC 27] and West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education Vs. Ayan Das [2007 (4) KLT 535] squarely cover the issue. Further, in W.P (C) No.33796/2007, this Hon'ble Court has taken the same view, which is confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A No.419/2007 by judgment dated 30.7.2008” 3. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme on more than one occasion, this Court would be reluctant to entertain the matters of this kind. I do not find any reason why this court should not accept the version given by the W.P ( C) No.24975 of 2008 3 University. Revaluation was effected and petitioner had identified his answer scripts and subscribed his signature for identifying the same. If that be so, I do not think there is any further grievance for the petitioner. I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.24975 of 2008 4 W.P ( C) No.24975 of 2008 5