IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 W.A.No.2218 of 2008 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.19119/2008, DATED 11/08/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER:- ------------------------------------------ BINJU.C.K., CHAREMEL HOUSE, GANDHI NAGAR P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN SMT.MINI.S.DAS. RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS:- --------------------------------------------------- 1. M.G.UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM , REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, M.G.UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. 3. PRINCIPAL AND CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT, ST.JOSEPH'S TRAINING COLLEGE, MANNANAM. 4. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, M.G.UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. R1, R2 & R4 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.T.A.SHAJI. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.2218 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 19th November, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu,C.J. A student, who had appeared for supplementary examination held for B.Ed. Degree course of the Mahatma Gandhi University, is before us in this appeal, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.19119 of 2008, dated 11th August, 2008. (2) Petitioner, who joined the B.Ed. course in the year 2005-06, had appeared for her B.Ed. Degree Examination of the Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam. She had failed in one subject. Therefore, she had to appear for supplementary examinations. The supplementary examination was conducted by the University, along with the regular examination of the other students, for the B.Ed. course. It so happens, that, the petitioner was given the paper pertaining to the regular examination and not for the supplementary examination. Without raising any demur, the petitioner had written the examination. The University authorities have now refused to evaluate the answer script of the petitioner. Aggrieved by this action of the University, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.(C).No.19119 of 2008 for certain reliefs. (3) The learned Single Judge, taking note of the fact that the petitioner was supposed to write the supplementary examination, not the W.A.No.2218 of 2008 - 2 - regular examination, and having written that examination and since her papers cannot be valued by the University, thought it fit to reject the writ petition. However, while disposing of the writ petition, he has reserved liberty to the petitioner to prosecute those persons who are responsible for distributing the question paper which does not pertain to the petitioner's examination. (4) Having gone through the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, in our view, the learned Judge has not committed any error whatsoever, which would call for our interference in appeal. Therefore, the Writ Appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer vku/dk Judge