IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2794 of 2009(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ALI RISHAD.C.M, S/O. MUHAMMED, CHUNDAMVEETIL MANDAYAPPURATH, P.O. VETTOM, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SHYVIN.K.S, S/O. SUBRAMANYAN.K.K, KADATHUKADAVIL HOUSE, PONNARIMANGALAM, MULAVUKADU.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. HASHIM.C, S/O. USMAN HAJI, CHEMBAN HOUSE, KELLOOR.P.O, MANANTHAWADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 4. SHAFEEK ASHRAF, S/O. A.M. ASHRAF, PUZHITHARA HOUSE, KEERNAKUNNU, THOTTUMUGHAM, POST ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. 5. ABDUL RAHMAN, S/O. A.H. SALEEM RAUTHER, FANATHEER, MANGARAM, PANTHALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 6. SOORAJ.C.S, S/O. C. SOMANATHAN, HOUSE NO.5/653, AMBALAKKARA ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 7. LIYA.M.A, D/O.M.K. ABDUL GAFOOR, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, THALIKKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 8. ROSHNI.M.A, D/O.DR.K. MOHAMMED ALI, SANCTUM HOUSE, KOTTULI POST, (VIA) PARAYANCHERY, CALICUT DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CALICUT UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, CALICUT UNIVERSITY POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. SC SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.2794 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioners are MBBS students in the MES Medical College, Perinthalmanna. According to the petitioners, they submitted applications to the respondent University seeking revaluation of some of their first year papers. Exts.P3 to P9 are the applications submitted by the petitioners 1 to 7 and the application of the 8th petitioner has not been produced. In this writ petition what they complain is the delay on the part of the University in completing the revaluation sought for and therefore they seek an order requiring the University to complete the revaluation and declare the results on an expeditious basis. 2. I heard the standing counsel for the University. If as stated by the petitioners they have made the applications WP(c).No.2794/09 /2/ which are proper in all respects, there is no reason why the revaluation should be delayed. 3. Having regard to the case as pleaded in the writ petition, it is directed that if the applications made by the petitioners are otherwise in order, revaluation sought for by them shall be completed, and the results shall be published as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/