IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 709 of 2009(H) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): -------------------- JOHNSON MANAYANI, AGED 52 S/O.DEVASSIA, MATHAI, MANAYANI LANE, MANASTERY ROAD, COCHIN-11. BY ADV. SRI.ROY THOMAS SRI.T.M.SUNIL SMT.S.CHITHRA RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. CALICUT UNIVERSITY, REP.BY ITS, REGISTRAR, THENJIPALAM, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, OF -DO- -DO- 4. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, OF -DO- -DO 5. STATE OF KERALA, SECRETARY TO HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. FOR R1 TO 4 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 709 OF 2009 (H) ===================== Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner, an Advocate of this Court has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to complete the enquiry mentioned in Ext.P4 and to take disciplinary action against the erring examiners of the respondent University. The second prayer sought is to direct the respondents not to impose Rs.150/- as demanded in Ext.P3. 2. Petitioner's son was a law student in the Trichur Law College. He appeared for the 8th Semester Examination and failed in two subjects. According to the petitioner, thereupon he came to know that there was mass failure and hence filed Ext.P1 complaint before the University. Seeking action on Ext.P1, petitioner's son filed WP(C) No.28976/08 and that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment recording a statement of the University that despite the absence of an application, revaluation of the petitioner's son's answer papers was already undertaken. Further, this Court also permitted the petitioner to pursue Ext.P3 representation made by him. WPC No. 709/09 :2 : 3. On revaluation, there was difference in the marks awarded to the petitioner's son and Ext.P3 reflects the revaluation marks. Even thereafter also, according to the petitioner, no further action was taken by the University in this regard, and therefore, this writ petition is filed. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the University. It is seen that University had received complaints of mass failure and that the Syndicate in its meeting held on 18/9/08 resolved to conduct a random valuation, and also that, if any large scale discrepancy is detected, to conduct a revaluation of all answer scripts of subjects in which mass failure had occurred. It is stated that mass failure was noticed in certain subjects of the 5 year IV th semester and 3 year 2nd Semester. University has produced as Exts.R1(a), R1(b), R1(c), R1(d) and R1(e) indicating that in respect of the aforesaid five papers of the two semesters, random valuation was done, and according to the University, the variation found was negligible. It is stated that its Standing Committee on examination, taking note of the revaluation marks, decided to drop further proceedings in the matter. 5. Therefore, counter affidavit filed by the University WPC No. 709/09 :3 : shows that on receipt of complaints, the University had taken appropriate action and it was only on finding that there was no merit in the complaints that the University decided to drop further action pursuant to the decision taken by the Syndicate. There is no material available to conclude that the action of the University is tainted by any arbitrariness or malafides warranting interference. 6. Now what remains is the second prayer of the petitioner to relieve his son from the revaluation fee. It is seen that on the complaint made, University had its own, volunteered to have a revaluation done and in the revaluation, there were substantial variation in the marks awarded to the petitioner's son. Accordingly, Ext.P3 memo also has been issued. In that view of the matter, I do not think any justification saddle the petitioner with the liability to remit any fee for the revaluation undertaken. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp