Dismissed

Bharath S. Varma v. Calicut University Kozhikode and Another

Kerala HC17 Nov 2009WP(C)/27194/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought expeditious revaluation of his failed engineering exam papers, claiming serious prejudice if delayed. The single-judge court directed the university to revalue the script and communicate results within eight weeks of producing a certified copy of the judgment. No other conclusion to assist in nationwide decisions.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to revalue the petitioner's answer script and communicate the result within eight weeks of the petitioner producing a certified copy of this judgment to the Controller of Examinat

Bharath S. Varma Vs Calicut University Kozhikode and… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 27194 of 2009(T) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

BHARATH.S.VARMA, LAEKSHMI VILAS, CHIRAKKAL P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

CALICUT UNIVERSITY, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶13

CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, KOZHIKODE.

¶14

BY SRI. P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

¶17

W.P.(C) No. 27194 OF 2009

¶18

Dated this the 17^th day of November, 2009

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The petitioner appeared for the 8^th semester B.Tech degree examination in Mechanical Engineering conducted by the University of Calicut in June 2009. The results were published in the first week of August 2009. The petitioner failed in the paper Operation Management and Automobile Engineering (Elective III). He has therefore applied for revaluation of his answer script by submitting the application dated 18.9.2009. Though a copy of the application is not produced, relying on Ext.P1 it is contended that revaluation fee was remitted on 29.8.2009. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious revaluation of his answer script on the ground that if revaluation is delayed, he will be put to serious prejudice.

¶21

Sri. P.C.Sasidharan, the learned standing counsel appearing for the University of Calicut on instructions submits that an application for revaluation has been received from the petitioner. He submits that if the application is in order and the requisite fee has been paid, the University will take steps to

¶22

W.P.(C) No. 27194/09

¶23

¶24

revalue his answer script and to communicate the results expeditiously. In the light of the said submission, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to take steps to have the petitioner’s answer script revalued and to communicate the result to him expeditiously and in any event within eight weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the Controller of Examinations, University of Calicut.

¶25

P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE

¶26

vps

Bharath S. Varma v. Calicut University Kozhikode and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharath S. Varma v. Calicut University Kozhikode and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abraham Thomas Vs State of Kerala

M.C.Ravi Vs State of Kerala and Others

Vijayan Vs Divisional Forest Officer

Dr.v.v.Pyarelal Vs Dr.a.Jayakrishnan

K.Kishore Vs Indusnd Bank Ltd.

Poulose Vs Superintendent of Survey & Land Records