This court dismissed the review petition challenging a single judge order regarding MBA admission. The court held that the cited precedents relied on Article 142 or factually distinct principles and that universities cannot relax regulations in favor of specific candidates. No apparent error was found in the impugned judgment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932
RP.No. 473 of 2010(K)
--------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.35142/2009 Dated 05/03/2010 ....................
REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER --------------------------------
VIPIN RAJ.R., SANKARA VILASOM, MARU - SOUTH, ALUMKADAVU P.O. KARUNAGAPPALLY.
BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Review Petition No.473/2010 in W.P.(C). No.35142/2009-K
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 8th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The Review Petition is filed by the writ
petitioner on certain grounds. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, going by Annexure-V Judgment rendered in a similar case, a Division Bench of this Court has recognised the award of one more
mark, for the student therein, based on the revaluation. It is therefore, submitted that the situation herein is identical as the petitioner has also obtained one more mark consequent on the revaluation. If the said mark is reckoned, the petitioner who is now doing the M.B.A course will be able to pursue his studies. Reliance is placed on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C).No.33172/2003 and that of the Apex Court in
Selin Mary Mammen v. Mahatma Gandhi University and
Others [(2008) 17 SCC 615] to support the plea that if
the person fell short by only one mark in the qualifying examination, direction can be issued to reckon the said mark for enabling the party concerned
R.P. No.473/2010
-:2:-
to pursue the course to which he has joined, based on the marks of the qualifying examination.
Vice Chancellor to take a decision on Ext.P23 representation therein.
revaluation of the answer papers. There was an increase of six marks in respect of the paper International Trade and Marketing, i.e. the total marks obtained by him pursuant to revaluation will be 20.
Now, the said mark could not be reckoned by the University since there was no difference of 4% of the
total marks. The petitioner is now put in a severe predicament because of the above aspects.
R.P. No.473/2010
-:3:-
R.P. No.473/2010
-:4:-
the Division Bench and, by Annexure-V Judgment, the
Division Bench was of the view that in the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it would have been appropriate
to decline interference when the ultimate result of the decision have landed a student in doldrums.
said decision only on the particular facts of that case.
revaluation marks will help the petitioner, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the University, they cannot relax the regulation in favour of a particular candidate.
Selin Mary Mammen's case [(2008) 17 SCC 615] . A
reading of paragraph (6) of the Judgment will show that relief was granted by exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and,
accordingly, a direction was issued to reckon one more mark. In that view of the matter, the said Judgment is
R.P. No.473/2010
also clearly distinguishable. So is the case in W.P. (C) No.33172/2003 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am satisfied that there is no apparent error in the Judgment. Dismissed.
Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms
\TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge should re-consider the impugned judgment directing the Vice Chancellor to decide on admission based on revaluation marks despite the absence of a 4% difference.
Whether the relief granted in Selin Mary Mammen under Article 142 can be applied by analogy under Article 226 in this analogous fact situation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Selin Mary Mammen v. Mahatma Gandhi University and OthersDistinguished¶52
Selin Mary Mammen v. Mahatma Gandhi University and Others [(2008) 17 SCC 615] · Who else cites this
W.P.(C).No.33172/2003Distinguished¶31
Annexure-V JudgmentReferred¶26
2 provisions across 1 enactments
VIPIN RAJ.R.
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY
T.R. Rama Chandran Nair
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
