IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23748 of 2011(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUHAIB.K.V., S/O.MOHAMMED, KURUVALAPPIL VEEDU, NADUVATTAM, SUKAPURAM PO MALAPPURAM DT, PIN 679 576. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY SRI.M.I.JOHNSON SRI.BIJU MARTIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY PO, PIN 673 635, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT ,CALICUT UNIVERSITY PO, PIN 673 635, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. SC SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23748 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- A TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT SHOWING THE DETAILS OF THE MARK OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P2- A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE K.V.USTHAD MEMORIAL DARUL HIDAYA ORPHANAGE ARTS & SCIENCE COLLEGE TO THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 29.7.11 EXT.P3- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 1.8.11 (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J .......................................... W.P.(C). 23748/2011 .......................................... Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner was a B.Com student in K.V.Usthad Memorial Darul Hidaya Orphanage Arts & Science College, which is affiliated to the first respondent University. In the final year Examination, petitioner had got 18 marks for paper XII and 16 for paper XIII in the internal Examinations. However, when the College reported the matter to the University, due to an inadvertent mistake, it was shown that the petitioner had secured only 8 marks each in both the papers. Accordingly, the University issued Ext.P1 mark list also. Subsequently, petitioner approached the University for correcting the aforesaid mistake and the College also forwarded Ext.P2 letter confessing their mistake. In spite of all these, correction was not carried out and the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation to the second respondent which also did not evoke any response. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. W.P.(C).23748/11 2 3. Since the facts are as stated above, I think the only order that is required is a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P3 and having regard to the urgency pointed out, I direct that the second respondent shall pass orders on Ext.P3 representation as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs