Allowed

Chisna Valsan v. the Controller of Examinations and Ors.

Kerala HC12 Nov 2009WP(C)/31891/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a university memo denying revaluation of manually valued multiple choice answer scripts. The court held revaluation is permitted, quashed the impugned notices, and directed the university to revalue the answer scripts within one month.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Ext.P2 and Ext.P3; direction to revalue answer scripts and communicate result within one month.

Chisna Valsan Vs the Controller of Examinations 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

THURSDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 31891 of 2009(F) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶7

CHISNA VALSAN, D/O A.VALSALAN, AGED 21, "SREEPADAM", THIRUTHIYAD, KOZHIKODE673 004.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

¶11

THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS P.O., KANNUR 670 567.

¶12

THE REGISTRAR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS P.O., KANNUR 670 567.

¶13

THE PRINCIPAL, PARIYARAM DENTAL COLLEGE, PARIYARAM, KANNUR.

¶14

ADV. SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY FOR R1&R2

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

¶17

W.P.(C) No. 31891 OF 2009

¶18

Dated this the 12^th day of November, 2009

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Heard Sri. Mohammed Nias C.P., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. M.Saseendran, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kannur University.

¶21

The petitioner appeared for the first year BDS examination conducted by the Kannur University in OctoberNovember, 2008. The results were published in June, 2009. The petitioner failed in two papers. She therefore applied for revaluation of her answer scripts in the said papers by submitting Ext.P5 application dated 30.6.2009. In order to get her answer scripts revalued expeditiously, she filed W.P.(C) No. 19087 of 2009 in this Court. By Ext.P1 judgment delivered on 16.7.2009, this Court directed the Kannur University to publish the result of revaluation expeditiously and in any event within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, if the application for revaluation is in order. The Controller of Examinations thereafter sent Ext.P2 letter and Ext.P3 memo, both dated 23.9.2009 informing the petitioner that as the revaluation sought was of the answer sheets of multiple choice

¶22

W.P.(C) No. 31891/09

¶23

¶24

objective type questions, revaluation is not permissible. Exts.P2 and P3 are under challenge in this writ petition wherein the petitioner seeks a direction to the Kannur University to revalue her answer scripts expeditiously.

¶25

The learned standing counsel appearing for the Kannur University submits that Ext.P2 letter was sent as Controller of Examinations was of the opinion that answer scripts of multiple choice objective type questions cannot be revalued. He submits that the petitioner’s answer scripts were therefore not revalued and that Ext.P3 memo was sent without revaluing the answer scripts.

¶26

It is not in dispute that the answer script is not an OMR answer script valued by an optical scanner. The question papers were of the multiple choice category. The candidate will have to darken a bubble indicating the answer and the answer scripts are manually valued. The possibility of the examiner committing mistakes in the valuation cannot be ruled out in the case of multiple choice question papers also. Therefore, the stand taken by the Kannur University that such answer scripts cannot be revalued is plainly untenable. The Calicut University First Ordinances, 1978 which for the time being applies to the Kannur

¶27

W.P.(C) No. 31891/09

¶28

¶29

University does not draw a distinction between answer scripts of multiple choice objective type question papers and answer scripts of the conventional kind. In such circumstances, I am constraint to hold that the stand taken by the University in Ext.P2 cannot be sustained.

¶30

I accordingly quash Exts.P2 and P3 and direct the respondents to have the petitioner’s answer scripts described in Ext.P5 application revalued and to communicate the result to her within one month from today.

¶31

P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE

¶32

vps

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 31891/09 4

Chisna Valsan v. the Controller of Examinations and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chisna Valsan v. the Controller of Examinations and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reji Mecheri Vs the District Collector,Kottayam & Others

Moosankutty Vs the Commissioner of Land Revenue & Ors.

Jayadevan Nair Vs University of Calicut & Ors.

Fathima Memorial Educational Trust Vs State of Kerala

Rajan Vs the District Collector,Malappuram

Nimmi Mohan Vs Controller of Examination, Cochin Uty.