IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 19167 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ RANI CHACKO, AGED 23, D/O. CHACKO, KARIMATHI HOUSE, SREEMOOLANAGARAM.P.O, THEKKUMBHAGAM VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.VIDYASAGAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-60. 2. THE REGISTRAR, MATHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-60. 3. BOARD OF EXAMINATION AND REVLUATION MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS AND REVALUATION, M.G UNIVERSITY. BY ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.19167 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a pre-degree student who appeared for the pre-degree examination in April-May 1998. On the belief that the English paper was not properly scrutinised and revalued, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent University for another revaluation. Earlier the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P(C).No. 20665/2006, in which, according to the petitioner, she was permitted to remit the additional amount for revaluation and for properly scrutinising her English answer paper. The petitioner is stated to have remitted the fee in respect of the same. The petitioner is aggrieved by the failure on the part of the University to revalue her answer paper. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University, on the basis of the counter affidavit, would submit that the examination having been over in 1998, the answer paper is not available now. He would further submit that as per Ext.P5 memo which was the basis for the earlier judgment, what has w.p.c.19167/08 2 been extended to the petitioner is not a revaluation, but only an additional memo for which the petitioner was directed to pay fee of Rs.100/-. Pursuant to payment of that fee additional memo was already issued to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, the learned Standing Counsel would submit that nothing more can be done in the present circumstances. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Admittedly the examination was over as early as in April-May 1998. I do not think that the University can be expected to preserve the answer paper for 10 years. In the absence of the answer paper, no revaluation can be done. As such, the petitioner cannot be given any relief in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.19167/08 3