Students challenged denial of revaluation for failed mathematics papers as conditions of provisional admission. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding applications were rejected due to missed timelines and lack of available answer papers for re-evaluation.
The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2014/18TH CHAITHRA, 1936
WP(C).No. 5621 of 2014 (C)
PETITIONER(S):
1. ASHISH PAUL B.TECH STUDENT (2N YEAR) ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING KUNNAPPILLY P.O., MELOOR, CHALAKUDY THRISSUR.
2. HANZON FRANCIS B.TECH STUDENT, [2ND YEAR] MECHANICAL ENGINEERING NIRMALA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KUNNAPPILLY P.O. MELOOR, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR.
3. MOHAMMED BIFIN B.TECH STUDENT (2ND YEAR), MECHANICAL ENGINEERING NIRMALA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KUNNAPPILLY P.O. MELOOR, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.I.DINESH MENON SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN
RESPONDENT(S):
1. NIRMALA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING KUNNAPPILLY P.O., MELOOR, CHALAKUDY THRISSUR DIST-680311, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENJIPALAM CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., 673635.
3. THE REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENJIPALAM CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., 673635.
4. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, PAREEKSHA BHAVAN CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., 673635.
R2 -R 4 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC,CALICUTY UNIVERSITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
kkj
WP(C).No. 5621 of 2014 (C) ---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPOY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.4.2013 IN WP(C) NO.10109 OF 2013. EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17.10.2013. EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13.11.2013. EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR EVALUATION. EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 15.11.2013. EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 15.11.2013. EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 20.2.2014. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE R3(A): TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL HELD ON 22.07.2013
// TRUE COPY //
PA TO JUDGE
K.Vinod Chandran, J.
W.P.(C).No.5621 of 2014-C
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 08th day of April, 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are all students of B.Tech Engineering course, who were admitted to the course in the academic year 2011.
The course, admittedly, is of four year duration, having eight semesters.
“Going by the academic performance of these candidates, only Sl.No.7, Shinto Antony has any scope of passing the engineering degree course. Since these candidates were admitted to the first year without conforming to the University regulations and since they have already undergone 2 years of course work, in consideration of the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, these
WP(C).No.5621 of 2014 - 2 -
students may be permitted to continue only on the following condition:
Before registering for the 5th Semester examinations they should pass both the mathematics papers in the combined I & II semesters.
Before registering for the 7th semester examinations, they should pass all the mathematics papers in the first two years of the course.
The SC students in the list may be exempted from this.
The Principals of the Colleges who admitted these students not conforming to the University regulations should be strictly warned”.
continue only on the condition that they would qualify the mathematics papers in the combined I & II Semesters. The petitioners had appeared for the 1st and 2nd Semester examinations even before Annexure R3(a) order was passed. But, however, their results were not published, since the admission to the examination was provisional and subject to the result of their eligibility being considered by the Academic Council. On the Academic Council deciding as indicated above, the petitioners' results were published on 19.10.2013. The petitioners failed in both the mathematics papers
WP(C).No.5621 of 2014 - 3 -
in the combined I & II Semesters. The grievance in the present writ petition is with respect to the denial of revaluation.
applied for revaluation within the time stipulated by the University, being one month, and the University refused to accept the said applications. The petitioners in the above writ petition pray for an order directing the University to conduct revaluation.
01.11.2013 and 11.11.2013; but the fee is seen to have been remitted
WP(C).No.5621 of 2014 - 4 -
only on 15.11.2013. The petitioners' contention is that they had, immediately on the publication of their results, being 19.10.2013, applied for revaluation within the one month time stipulated. The petitioners contend that the University did not accept their applications. If that were so, the petitioners who were before this Court even in an earlier instance, challenging the objection raised by the University with respect to their eligibility, ought to have moved this Court immediately thereafter. No such action having been taken by the petitioners and in the teeth of the submission of the University that the answer papers itself are unretrievable, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition itself is devoid of merit.
In the light of the above finding, the writ petition is
dismissed. No costs.
Sd/K.Vinod Chandran, Judge
vku.
( true copy )
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition for revaluation of exam results maintained without prior compliance after universal adherence to university regulations.
Whether the university can be directed to conduct revaluation when answer papers are unretrievable.
Whether applicant can seek remedy when failure to act within the stipulated time renders the matter devoid of merit.
ASHISH PAUL
HANZON FRANCIS
MOHAMMED BIFIN
NIRMALA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
