IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2008 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34459 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ROY MATHEW M.,S/O.MATHEW M.L. 27 YEARS, MURINGATHERY HOUSE, VELUR BAZAAR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS SRI.PHIJO JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REP.BY REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., THENJIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., THENJIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENJIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY SC SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).34459/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner applied for M.A.Malayalam, under the Distance Education Programme of the Calicut University during the year 2004-06. Petitioner passed all the papers in the 1st year examination, conducted in 2005, as evidenced by Ext.P1. He appeared for the 2nd year M.A.Examination in April, 2006. But he failed in one of the papers namely ‘Subsidiary Sanskrit’. Petitioner wanted to write the said exam again. As per the University statutes, when a student fails in any one of the subjects, he has to write the entire 2nd year examination once again. Therefore, the petitioner applied for the supplementary examinations held in 2007. According to the petitioner, due to illness which afflicted him, he was not able to apply his mind fully in the examination and therefore, though he had passed in all the papers, his scores were not sufficient to secure him a percentage of 55, when all the marks are taken together. W.P.(C).34459/2008 2 2. It is noted that in the meanwhile, petitioner had sought for revaluation of one of the papers and on revaluation, it was found that he had passed the said paper. Petitioner’s grievance at present stems from the fact that taking note of the revalued marks and marks which he had secured in the supplementary examination, it was found that the petitioner had obtained 55 marks in the supplementary examination in paper-IX against the revalued marks of 44. Ext.P6 shows that 54 is the mark awarded to the petitioner for paper- IX, Subsidiary Sanskrit. Petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the University in permitting him to again improve the papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to surrender not only the revalued marks but the entire marks of all the papers which he had secured as per Ext.P6. Learned Standing Counsel for the University points out that as per clause 12.3 in W.P.(C).34459/2008 3 Chapter 12 of the University Handbook, a candidate shall be permitted to re-appear under the scheme for a paper/papers in his choice of the previous/final examinations of the P.G Course with option to retain the original marks, but such re-appearance shall be permitted only once. In the present case, though on revaluation of paper-IX, it was found that the petitioner had more than the minimum marks required for him to be treated as having passed in the subject, he had appeared for all the papers in the final year including Subsidiary Sanskrit. In effect, the petitioner got a chance of improving all the papers including paper-IX. If that be so, he cannot be permitted to exercise an option for re-appearance once more. I do not find may way to issue any direction to the University. Writ petition is bereft of merit and hence the same is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs