IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 14776 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. KARTHIKA RAJ, D/O.RAJAN, AGED 24, THRIKKARTHIKA, ELAVUMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. SWETHA T.R., THAYYIL HOUSE, VENGERI PO, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 010. BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.MANILAL SRI.S.NIDHEESH RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM - 695 034. 2. THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM - 695 034. 3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM - 695 034. R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 14776 of 2011(V) ---------------------------------- APPENDIX --------------- PETITINER'S EXHIBITS --------------------------------- EXT.P1. COPY OF THE MARK LIST FOR THE 1ST SEMESTER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE MARK LIST FOR THE 2ND SEMESTER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE MARK LIST FOR THE 3RD SEMESTER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE MARK LIST FOR THE FINAL SEMESTER EXAMINATION OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE MARK LIST FOR THE FINAL SEMESTER EXAMINATION OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 22.3.2011. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 26.3.2011. EXT.P8. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 23.5.2011. EXT.P9. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 23.5.2011. XT.P10. COPY OF THE LETTER FOR CAMPUS SELECTION DATED 15.1.2011 ISSUD BY THE FACT TO THE 1ST PETITINER. EXT.P11. COPY OF THE SCORE REPORT FOR MANAGEMENT APTITUDE TEST BY THE ISTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT NEW DELHI. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL -------------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK ANTONY DOMINIC, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.14776 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioners were MBA students in the Tangal Kunju Musaliyar Institute of Management, Kollam, affiliated to the 1st respondent University. When the final results were announced they failed in one paper namely 'International Business Finance Strategy'. There was no provision for revaluation. But the rules permitted scrutiny of the answer papers. The petitioners made applications and that was allowed. According to the petitioners it was found that for question No.15 in Part-C no marks were awarded. They sought reconsideration of the matter. But however, their applications were rejected and that lead the petitioners to file this writ petition. Thus the main complaint of the petitioners is that for question No.15 in Part-C of the aforesaid paper, marks were not awarded. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent and in para 6 thereof it is stated thus: “6. On receipt of Exhibits.P6 and P7 and after verifying the marks petitioners pointed out that their answer to quesiton No.15 was not valued. It is respectfully submitted that the question paper consists of 3 parts Part 'A', Part 'B' and Part 'C' there are two W.P(C) No.14776 of 2011 2 questions ie. Question No.14 and 15 out of which only one question had to be answered. A copy of the question paper is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(a). Petitioners answered Question No.15. But in the Index sheet mark was awarded in the column for Question No.14 instead of Question No.15 mistakenly. The format for scrutiny of answer papers of the petitioners are produced herewith and marked as Exhibits R1(b) & R1(c) respectively. Question No.14 was not answered by the petitioners. Petitioners did not point out the fact they received marks for Question No.14, which they have not answered”. 3. Although a reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners, the explanation in the counter affidavit, which is supported by the question paper and the format of the answer papers indicates that instead of assigning the marks to question No.15 by an inadvertant error the marks were actually recorded in the column for question No.14, which was not answered by the petitioner. This discloses that the respondents have committed an inadvertant mistake, which cannot be allowed to be capitalized by the students. I do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ab W.P(C) No.14776 of 2011 3