IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2010 / 16TH ASWINA 1932 RP.No. 911 of 2010 () -------------------- ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.29525/2010 Dated 24/09/2010) .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------------------- 1. A.K.SUNITH KURIAN, S/O.KURIAN, AZHAKEDATHU (H), CHURCH NAGAR - 144, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. KINS P.JOSE, C/O.A.K.SUNITH KURIAN, AZHAKEDATHU (H), CHURCH NAGAR - 144, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.K.K.RAZIA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------- 1. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, M.G.UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM – 686 560. 2. THE REGISTRAR, M.G.UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. BY SRI.T.A.SHAJI, SC , UNIVERSITY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P. No.911 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No. 29525 of 2010 M ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 8th day of October, 2010 O R D E R Petitioners herein submit that, along with the application for revaluation, they had applied for scrutiny of their answer scripts also. It is stated that, by an inadvertent omission, they have not sought direction for allowing scrutiny of answer scripts in the writ petition. It is on that ground, the judgment is sought to be renewed. 2. A perusal of the documents produced along with the writ petition, prima facie, shows that the petitioners had also applied for scrutiny of the answer scripts. Therefore, this Review Petition is disposed of directing that, in pursuance to the directions in the judgment, if the answer scripts have not already been sent for revaluation, scrutiny thereof will be permitted within one week of production of a copy of this order. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks