IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28387 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NICKITH MENDEZ, S/O. MENDEZ, AGED 22,KANCHAKKANAT HOUSE, DON-BOSCO ROAD,VADUTHALA, KOCHI-23, B.TECH.STUDENT OF S.N.M.I.M.T,MALIANKARA. BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SRI.ADEEP ANWAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, M.G.UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, M.G.UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. STANDING COUNSEL SRI.T.A.SHAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 28387 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Sri. Praveen K.Joy, 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 supplementary 6th and 7th semester B.Tech degree examinations conducted by the Mahatma Gandhi University in May-June 2009. The results were published in August 2009. In the meanwhile, the petitioner appeared for and passed the 8th semester examination, the result of which was also published in August 2009. The petitioner failed in one paper each in the supplementary 6th and 7th semester examinations. The petitioner has therefore applied for revaluation of his answer scripts by submitting Exts.P1 and P2 applications. The petitioner has also paid the requisite fee prescribed for revaluation. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to revalue his answer scripts expeditiously, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. W.P.(C) No. 28387/09 2 3. Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Mahatma Gandhi University submits that petitioner's answer scripts 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 the answer scripts revalued, if his 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 applications for revaluation without wasting any time and that unless applications for revaluation are expeditiously disposed of, it will cause serious prejudice to the students. I am therefore of the considered opinion that University should not wait for the expiry of 81 clear days from the date of W.P.(C) No. 28387/09 3 publication of the results to complete the revaluation process. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to complete the revaluation of the answer scripts described in Ext.P1 and P2 applications 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 vps