This single-day order dismissed a writ petition by a 1st-year B.Tech student challenging the university's rejection of her application for revaluation. The Court found no scope for interference as the initial and new valuations were conducted by separate panels of valuers.
null
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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
WEDNESDAY,THE 05TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 14TH BHADRA, 1940
WP(C).No. 22244 of 2018
PETITIONER/S:
ADITYA S KUMAR
AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. SUDHEER KUMAR, KANATTIL HOUSE, VELLANGALLUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680662.
BY ADV. SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH SRI.ACHUTH KYLAS SRI. MAHESH MENON SRI. DEAGO JOHN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 APJ ABDUL KALAM REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695016.
2 CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGIVAL UNIVERSITY, CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695016.
BY ADV. SRI. S. KRISHNAMOORTHY-SC OTHER PRESENT:
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
W.P.(C).No.22244 of 2018
Dated this the 5th day of September, 2018.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a 1st year B. Tech student. She got only C Grade in “EC100-Basics of Electronics Engineering”. In another subject “Engineering Physics” the petitioner got B Grade. The petitioner applied for revaluation of both the papers. After revaluation, the petitioner's B Grade in “Engineering Physics” has been upgraded as A Grade. However, there was no change in respect of C Grade in “EC100-Basics of Electronics Engineering”. Challenging the above, the petitioner has approached this Court.
The initial valuation was done by two valuers. The revaluation was also done by equal number of valuers of different institutions. This Court find no scope for interference. The petition is only to be dismissed. According it is dismissed.
Sd/-
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.
cl
3
W.P.(C.) No.22244/18
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESULTS PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE RESPONDENTS DATED 16/02/2018. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE GIVEN BY THE TEACHER AFTER EVALUATING THE PETITIONER'S ANSWER SCRIPT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL SENT ON 28/03/2018. EXHIBIT P4 A A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL SENT ON 1/4/2018. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVALUATION IN THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE RESPONDENTS. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 28/04/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23/05/2018 MADE BY THE PRINCIPAL, CHRIST COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, IRINJALAKUDA TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11/06/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
/TRUE COPY/
P.S TO JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Court should interfere with the university's decision on the revaluation of examination papers.
ADITYA S KUMAR
APJ ABDUL KALAM
CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGIVAL UNIVERSITY, CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
