IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 30046 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- ANEETA RINI RAJAN, 'SANTHI', HOUSE NO.253 A, SREE NAGAR, VADAKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM-691 010. BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KARIAVATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KARIAVATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 30046 OF 2010 (E) ===================== Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a student of BA (English) in Fathima Matha National College, Kollam. In April 2009, petitioner appeared for the first year examination and the results were published in January, 2010. Petitioner applied for scrutiny and revaluation of her answer Paper II of Part I. Scrutiny was allowed and according to the petitioner, during the course of the scrutiny, she found the answer paper in a mutilated condition. It was on this allegation and complaining that the answer paper is incapable of revaluation, that the writ petition was filed. 2. In view of the complaint of the petitioner that answer paper is in a mutilated condition, this Court issued order dated 12/10/2010 directing the standing counsel for the University to make available the answer paper. Accordingly, the answer paper has been made available by the learned counsel for the University. Although there are certain over writings in the answer paper, it is not correct to say that the answer paper is in a mutilated condition. Therefore, that allegation of the petitioner is WPC No.30046/10 :2 : factually incorrect. 3. In so far as the application made by the petitioner for revaluation is concerned, learned counsel informs that the answer paper has been revalued and the revaluation mark has been communicated to the petitioner. In the light of the above, this writ petition is only to be closed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp