Allowed

The Controller of Examination v. Sajin Seby

Kerala HC23 Mar 2023WP(C)/4136/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Kerala examined an order by the Upa Lok Ayukta directing a University to review an answer paper without charging fees. Relying on a prior Division Bench judgment, the Court held the order was without jurisdiction as it contradicted statutory regulations governing revaluation and awarded the petition.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Upa Lok Ayukta dated 17.1.2022 requiring review of answer paper without fee or formal application was set aside.

The Controller of Examination Vs Sajin Seby — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 4136 OF 2022

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY, CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695016.

¶9

2 THE REGISTRAR APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY, CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695016.

¶10

BY ADV ELVIN PETER P.J.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 SAJIN SEBY PADINJAREKUTTU HOUSE, MONIPALLY P O, KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN-686636.

¶13

2 THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

ADV. SREELAKSHMI FOR PETITIONER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P(C).4136/2022

¶18

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Dated this the 23^rd day of March, 2023

¶21

S. Manikumar, CJ.

¶22

Though the student/1^st respondent in the writ petition has been served, there was no appearance on his behalf and therefore, we directed the Registry to show his name in the cause list.

¶23

Thereafter also, there was no representation either in person

¶24

or through counsel.

¶25

Averments made in the writ petition are not refuted.

¶26

In view of the above, we intend to proceed with the writ

¶27

petition and pass orders on merits.

¶28

Being aggrieved by Exhibit P5 order passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta on 17.1.2021, in Complaint No.207/2021, instant writ petition is filed by APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and another, seeking for a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Exhibit P5 and quash the same.

¶29

Petitioners have sought for a declaration that Exhibit P5 order, issued by the Kerala Lok Ayukta, 2^nd respondent, is without any jurisdiction and is therefore, void and non-est.

¶30

Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as

¶31

under:

¶32

W.P(C).4136/2022

¶33

¶34

7.1. The above Writ Petition is filed, inter alia, to quash the order passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta dated 17/01/2022 in the complaint No.207/2021A filed by the 1^st respondent, directing the University to review the answer paper of the 1^st respondent in Computer Networks for the 5^th Semester by a Senior member of faculty, without insisting for a formal application and payment of any fee, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶35

7.2. It is submitted that a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in University of Kerala v. Parvathy Krishna reported in 2014 (2) KLT 233 has declared the law that the Lok Ayukta has no power to issue a direction to the University to revaluate the answer paper of the student.

¶36

7.3 Thus, it is contended that the order impugned in this writ petition is one issued by the Upa Lok Ayukta against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the above decision. Hence this Writ Petition.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

¶38

Exhibit P5 order dated 17.1.2022 in Complaint No.207/2021, reads thus:

¶39

W.P(C).4136/2022

“KERALA LOK AYUKTA

PRESENT:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH,

¶44

UPA iOK AYUKTA

¶45

Date this, the 17^th day of January, 2022

¶46

Complaint No. 207/2021 A

¶47

Complainant:-

¶48

Sajin Seby, Padinjarekuttu (H), Monipaly P. O.,Kottayam, Kerala,PIN 686 636.

¶49

Respondents:

¶50

The Controller of Examinations,

¶51

APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram 695 016.

¶52

The Registrar, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Thiruvananthapuram 695 016.

¶53

The complaint having come up for consideration on 17.01.2022 and the court passed the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

Sri. G.Jyothichudan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submits that the University will review the answer paper in Computer Networks of the 5^th semester appeared by the Complainant, provided the complainant submits an application with a fee of Rs. 5000/for review. If such an application is submitted with the reacquired fee, the University will conduct the review of the answer paper by a senior member of faculty in the subject and result will be published within ten days.

¶56

The complainant submits that he hails from a financially poor family. Therefore, he is not in a position to

¶57

W.P(C).4136/2022

¶58

¶59

apply for review of the answer paper by paying Rs.5000/- for that purpose. Therefore, he prays for a direction from this Forum for conducting the review by the University without insisting for a formal application and remitting the fee. He further submits that insisting a formal application and payment of fee will result in injustice in the peculiar facts of the case.

¶60

This case has a peculiar background. In the first valuation of the paper, the complainant secured 16 marks. But, in the 2^nd valuation, the marks were enhanced to 37. The University had a 3^rd valuation of the paper and in that valuation the complainant secured 19 marks. This type of variations in marks in the valuations of a paper is really a reason for worry. The questions and the answers are one and the same. But, three persons valued those answers and awarded three different marks viz. 16, 37 and 19. Why and how these demonstrably different variations in marks are taking place ? The complainant submits that if he secures 32 marks, he will pass in the examination.

¶61

In the above peculiar circumstances, this Forum is of the considered view that the University has to review the answer paper of the Complainant by a senior member of faculty without insisting for a formal application or payment of any fee.

¶62

Therefore, the respondents are directed by this interim order to review the answer paper of the complainant in Computer Networks of the 5^th Semester examinations appeared by the complainant on 10.03.2021 by a senior member of faculty without insisting for a formal application or payment of any fee, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the University.

¶63

W.P(C).4136/2022

¶64

¶65

The result of such review shall also be published within that period.

¶66

Post on 08.02.2022.

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, UPA LOK AYUKTA”

¶69

In the Division Bench judgment of this Court, in University

¶70

of Kerala v. Parvathy Krishna, reported in 2014 (2) KLT 233, it is

¶71

observed thus :

¶72

“As a creature of a statute, the appellant University was bound to act in compliance with the provisions of the Kerala University Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. The Regulation, in the instant case, was one that governed revaluation of answer papers and it was an academic policy that found expression in the Regulations. In the absence of any challenge to the Regulation in question or the policy leading up to it, one cannot ignore the mandate of the said Regulations. It is not in dispute that, on a strict interpretation of the Regulation, the student was not entitled to seek a revaluation of her answer papers. In that view of the matter, we do not think it was open to the Lok Ayukta to issue a direction to the appellant University to revalue the answer paper of the student and thus to act contrary to the express provisions contained in the statutory Regulations. Such a direction cannot be justified on sympathetic grounds either for it is trite that there is no place for misplaced sympathy in academic matters that are regulated by statutory provisions.”

¶73

In the light of the above Hon’ble Division Bench judgment,

¶74

we are of the view that it is not open to the Lok Ayukta to issue any

¶75

direction to the University to conduct any revaluation of the answer scripts, and thus, to act contrary to the express provisions contained in the Statutory Regulations.

¶76

W.P(C).4136/2022

¶77

¶78

Giving due consideration to the facts and material on record, Exhibit P5 order dated 17.1.2022 in Complaint No.207/2021, passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta, is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. Writ petition is allowed.

¶79

Sd/S. Manikumar, Chief Justice

¶80

Sd/Murali Purushothaman, Judge

¶81

sou.

¶82

W.P(C).4136/2022

¶83

¶84

APPENDIX

¶85

PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS

¶86

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF ORDINANCE PASSED BY THE UNIVERSITY, LAYING DOWN THE GUIDELINES FOR THE CONDUCT OF EXAMINATIONS AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE CANDIDATE HAS TO BE ASSESSED, INCLUDING THE PROVISION FOR REVALUATION.

¶87

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER UO.NO.148/2020/KTU DATED 24/01/2020 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY, PROVIDING A PROVISION FOR REVIEW OF ANSWER SCRIPT FOR FAILED STUDENTS AND THE GUIDELINES TO BE FOLLOWED FOR SUCH REVIEW INCLUDING THE FEE TO BE PAID.

¶88

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.207/2021A FILED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2^ND RESPONDENT DATED 7.12.2021.

¶89

EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 9.1.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1^ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2^ND RESPONDENT.

¶90

EXHIBIT P4(A) : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P4

¶91

EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.1.2022 PASSED BY THE UPA LOK AYUKTA IN COMPLAINT NO.207/2021A FILED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT.

The Controller of Examination v. Sajin Seby

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Controller of Examination v. Sajin Seby

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Tom Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Dr. M.K.Sreedhar Vs State of Kerala

Jacob Padinjakkara Vs the State of Kerala

Paristhisthy Samrakshana Janakeeya Samithy, Vs the State of Kerala

Pannyan Raveendran Vs Shamnad a