IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31775 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MIRSHAD MAHAMOOD, FINAL YEAR M.B.B.S STUDENT (PART II) PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE, PARIYARAM, P.O. PARIYARAM, KANNUR - 670 502. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KANNUR UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS.P.O, KANNUR - 670 567. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS.P.O, KANNUR - 670 567. ADV. SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.31775/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET TOGETHER WITH INSTRUCTIONS. EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVALUATION DATED 19/11/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P4-TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 19/11/2011 OBTAINED FROM THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, MANGATTUPARAMBA. EXHIBIT-P5- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14/12/2010 IN W.P(C) 36940/2010 EXHIBIT-P6- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07/06/2011 IN W.P(C) 15034/2011 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE REGULATION RELATING TO THE REVALUATION/ISSUE OF PHOTOCOPY/SCRUTINY OF ANSWER SCRIPTS OF UNIVERSITY EXAMINATIONS. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 31775 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 6th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a final year MBBS student in the Pariyaram Medical College affiliated to the 1st respondent University. By Ext.P4 application, he sought revaluation of the Pathology Papers Part I and II. Complaining of delay and seeking a direction for completing the revaluation at any rate before the commencement of the supplementary examination, the writ petition is filed. 2. A statement has been filed by the standing counsel on behalf of the respondents where Ext.R1(a) regulations governing the revaluation have been produced. It is contended that the University is entitled to have 105 working days time from the date of receipt of the application for completing the revaluation. It is therefore submitted that the application made by the petitioner being dated 19/11/11, the writ petition is premature. 3. Although as at present, the University cannot be accused of having delayed revaluation on the application made by the petitioner, fact remains that in matters such as revaluation, the University should complete the process WPC No.31775/11 :2 : expeditiously so that there will be no uncertainty in the matter. As far as the provisions of the regulations relied on by the learned standing counsel for the respondents are concerned, regulations only provide an outer time limit and does not say that even the revaluation should be completed only on the expiry of the period prescribed therein. In my view, if the circumstances justify, the University should complete the revaluation expeditiously irrespective of the time limit fixed in the regulations. 4. In so far as the supplementary examinations for the subject in question are concerned, even according to the statement filed, the supplementary examinations have not been scheduled so far. In such circumstances, it should be possible for the University to complete the revaluation sought for by the petitioner before the commencement of the supplementary examinations. This the University shall do on the production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp