IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 10369 of 2008(H) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- JAYAKRISHNAN.R.S., PANDARATHOTTAM, NEDUMGOLAM P.O, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY BUILDING, PALAYAM , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY BUILDING, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 3. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, UNIVERSITY BUILDING, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 10369 OF 2008 H ==================== Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T In the B.Sc Degree Examination of which the petitioner was a student, he failed in English. He applied for revaluation and by Ext.P1 he was informed that he got 84 marks in total. Thereafter by Ext.P2, he was informed that in English Papers I and II, there was no change and that in the IIIrd paper, he got 22 marks as against original 17. According to the petitioner, thereafter he filed Ext.P3 complaining that in the IInd paper, the authorities have omitted to give him three marks for his answer to Question No.5. It is thereafter that this writ petition has been filed complaining that there has not been any response to Ext.P3 also. 2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents reiterate the contents of Ext.P2. It is also submitted that Ext.P3 representation was not received by the University. Despite this, learned counsel made available the answer papers of Paper II and has shown that for his answer to Question No.5, petitioner has in fact been given three marks. According to him, it is after giving all these that the petitioner lost in the 1st and IInd papers. WPC 10369/08 :2 : 3. From the facts, it can be seen that the complaint regarding omission to give three marks is factually incorrect. If that be so, the complaint made by the petitioner in Ext.P3, although the same has not even been received by the University, is also incorrect. 4. In view of this, there is absolutely no basis for the prayer sought in this writ petition for declaring that the petitioner has passed B.Sc English Examination. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp