IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2011 / 7TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 21952 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- ROHIT ABRAHAM JOHN, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.DR.SANTHOSH JOHN ABRAHAM, CHENNATTU RIVIERA, NICE GARDENS, P.J.ANTONY GROUND ROAD, PACHALAM, COCHIN-12. BY ADV. SRI.R.PADMARAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, THRIKKAKARA, COCHIN-682 022, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR. 2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, THRIKKAKARA, COCHIN-682 022. ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI,SC, CUSAT FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.21952/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MARKS OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE VIII SEMESTER EXAMINATION. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL SELECTION LIST OF WIPRO INFOTECH. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION OF PLACEMENT OFFERS. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO.5957/2011 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF SCRUTINY. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR PHOTOCOPIES OF ANSWER SCRIPTS, SCHEME AND KEY OF VALUATION AND DETAILED MARK SHEET. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE RESULTS OF THE VI SEMESTER EXAMINATION. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE RESULTS OF THE VI SEMESTER EXAMINATION AFTER REVALUATION OF THE PAPER. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE RESULTS OF THE VII SEMESTER EXAMINATION. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE RESULTS OF THE VII SEMESTER EXAMINATION AFTER REVALUATION OF THE PAPER ELECTRONIC PRODUCT DESIGN. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE PETITIONER FOR I TO V SEMESTER EXAMINATION. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL FROM WIPRO INFOTECH. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 9.8.11 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 21952 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 29th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a B.Tech student in the Toc-H Institute of Science and Technology, Arakunnam in the discipline Electronics and Communication Engineering. In this writ petition filed, the prayer sought by the petitioner reads as under:- (i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to produce th answer sheet of the petitioner for the subject Communication Systems of the VIII Semester examination before this Hon'ble Court and to value the answer sheet with the help of a subject expert to ensure that the valuation is properly done. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to accept the application for inspection and to permit the petitioner to inspect the answer sheet for the subject Communication Systems of the VIII Semester examination”. 2. When the matter was taken up for admission, counsel for the petitioner contended that initially on valuation, petitioner had secured 24 marks and that in scrutiny, he had secured 27 marks, which was intimated to him by Ext.P5. It is stated that despite the increase by 3 marks, by Ext.P13, he was informed that after revaluation, there was no change in his marks for the WPC No. 21952/11 :2 : subject Communication Systems. Therefore, Counsel submits that to resolve the said controversy, answer paper is required to be produced before this Court. 3. When this apparent contradiction was pointed out in Court, standing counsel for the respondents confirms that the marks awarded to the petitioner on scrutiny of the answer script, which was intimated to him by Ext.P5, viz 27 marks, will prevail and that he will be entitled to the benefit of the same. 4. In view of the submission made by the standing counsel for the University, there exists no contradiction between the marks awarded to the petitioner and what was awarded to him on scrutiny, and therefore, in so far as this grievance of the petitioner is concerned, all that is required is to record the submission of the standing counsel. I therefore record the aforesaid submission of the standing counsel. 5. Counsel for the petitioner then submits that if a proper valuation was conducted, he would have been entitled to higher marks than what is now awarded to him. On this basis, it is submitted that the respondent should be directed to produce the answer scripts before this Court. It is seen that the petitioner has WPC No. 21952/11 :3 : already applied for copies of the answer papers as per Ext.P6 ad he has been informed by a communication to the effect that the answer scripts can be made available only after the revaluation results are published in the University website. 6. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he has been informed of the revaluation results by Ext.P13 referred to above and therefore I do not see any reason why issuance of the copies of the answer scripts should be deferred until it is published in the website. 7. Therefore, I direct that, on the production of a copy of this judgment, within 7 days thereafter, the answer scripts sought for by the petitioner as per Ext.P6 should be made available to him. Once it is so made available, I leave it open to the petitioner to pursue his grievances if he is aggrieved by the marks awarded by the University. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp