IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28647 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- POORNIMA MOHANAN, D/O.K.P.MOHANAN, AGED 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAVUMGAMPILLY ILLOM, P.O.KUTHUKUZHI, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN 686 691. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 560. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, M.G.UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILL P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 560. STANDING COUNSEL SRI.T.A.SHAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.28647 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.V.A.Muhammed, 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 eighth semester B.Tech Degree Examination in Electrical and Electronics Engineering conducted by the Mahatma Gandhi University in May/June, 2009. The results were published in August, 2009. The petitioner failed in the paper 'Advanced Power Electronic System'. She has therefore applied for revaluation of her answer script in the said paper by submitting Ext.P1 application. She has also paid the requisite fee, it is stated. The petitioner submits that if her answer script is revalued she is sure to secure a pass and that unless her answer script is expeditiously revalued, she will be put to serious prejudice. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to revalue her answer script and W.P.(C)No.28647 of 2009 2 to communicate the results expeditiously. 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 her answer script revalued, if the 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 application for revaluation without wasting any time and that unless application for revaluation is expeditiously disposed of, it will cause serious prejudice to the student. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the University should not wait for the W.P.(C)No.28647 of 2009 3 expiry of 81 clear days from the date of publication of the results to complete the revaluation process. 5. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to complete the revaluation of the answer script described in Ext.P1 application and to communicate the results 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 skj.