IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29686 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SARATH JAMES, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.SRI.JAMES GEORGE, OLIKUNNEL HOUSE, MAYANAD PO, CALICUT PIN 673 008. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE THOMAS (PALA) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. BY SRI. T.A.SHAJI, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 29686 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Sri. Jose Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. T.A.Shaji, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Mahatma Gandhi University. 2. The petitioner appeared for the 8th semester B.Tech degree examination in Mechanical Engineering held in May-June 2009 by the Mahatma Gandhi University. The results were published in August 2009. He failed in the paper Production Engineering. The petitioner has therefore applied for revaluation of his answer script in the said paper by submitting Ext.P2 application dated 31.8.2009. The petitioner has also paid the requisite fee prescribed for revaluation, as can be seen from Ext.P3. The petitioner submits that he has passed all the other semester examinations and the remaining papers of the 8th semester examination, that if his answer script in Production Engineering is revalued, he is sure to secure a pass and that unless his answer script is revalued expeditiously, he will be put to serious prejudice. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the W.P.(C) No. 29686/09 2 respondents to revalue his answer script expeditiously, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 3. Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Mahatma Gandhi University submits that petitioner's answer script cannot be singled out and revalued as it will lead to loss of confidentiality. He also submits that as per the Examination Manual, the University requires 81 clear days from the date of publication of the results to complete the revaluation process. He further submits that the petitioner's application for revaluation will be considered and his answer script revalued, if his application is in order, within the aforesaid period. 4. The Examination Manual is not a statutory regulation. It is a Manual prepared by the University for its guidance. The stipulations in the Examination Manual cannot in my opinion, operate to the detriment of students. A Division Bench of this Court has in University of Kerala v. Sandhya P. Pai (1991 (1) KLT 812) held that the University should hurry with applications for revaluation without wasting any time and that unless applications for revaluation are expeditiously disposed of, it will cause serious prejudice to the W.P.(C) No. 29686/09 3 students. I am therefore of the considered opinion that University should not wait for the expiry of 81 clear days from the date of publication of the results to complete the revaluation process. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to take steps to have the answer script described in Ext.P2 revalued and to communicate the result to the petitioner within six weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the Controller of Examinations, Mahatma Gandhi University. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps W.P.(C) No. 29686/09 4 P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps