IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27443 of 2009(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SUJITH KUMAR.S., S/O.SUDHAKARAN, AGED 21 YEARS, `GOKULAM', 14/189 B, CEMETERY ROAD, CHULLIKKAL, COCHIN-5. BY ADV. MR.K.G.ANIL BABU RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, M.G.UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE M.G.UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR. T.A. SHAJI, SC, MG UTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 27443 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner appeared for the 5th semester B.Com Degree Examination conducted by Mahatma Gandhi University in December, 2008. The results were published in July, 2009. The petitioner secured only very low marks in the paper, Tourism Development and Information Communication Unit-I. He therefore applied for revaluation of his answer script by submitting Ext.P2 application. In the meanwhile, he also appeared for and passed the 6th semester examination. It is stated that petitioner has been offered employment in Indian Institute of Planning and Management. He submits that if his answer script is revalued, he is sure to get better marks. He submits that unless this Court interferes, revaluation is likely to be delayed. In this writ petition, he seeks a direction to the respondents to revalue his answer script and to communicate the result to him within a time limit to be fixed by this court. 2. Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned standing counsel appearing for Wpc 27443/2009 2 the Mahatma Gandhi University submits that petitioner's answer scripts cannot be singled out and revalued as it will lead to loss of confidentiality. He also submits that as per the Examination Manual, the University requires 81 clear days from the date of publication of the results to complete the revaluation process. He further submits that the petitioner's application for revaluation will be considered and his answer script revalued, if the application is in order, within the aforesaid period. 3. The Examination Manual is not a statutory regulation. It is a Manual prepared by the University for its guidance. The stipulations in the Examination Manual cannot in my opinion, operate to the detriment of students. A Division Bench of this court has in University of Kerala V.Sandhya P.Pai(1991(1)KLT 812) held that the University should hurry with applications for revaluation without wasting any time and that unless applications for revaluation are expeditiously disposed of, it will cause serious prejudice to the students. I am therefore of the considered opinion that University should not wait for the expiry of 81 clear days from the date of publication of the results to complete the revaluation process. Wpc 27443/2009 3 I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to complete the revaluation of the answer script of the petitioner and to communicate the result to the petitioner within six weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the Controller of Examinations, Mahatma Gandhi University. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE lgk