Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE5H DAY OF NOVEMBER201314TH KARTHIKA, 1935 WP(C).No. 11592 of 2013 (Y) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------------------- KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH, AGED21YEARS S/O. VIDYA SAGAR SINGH, 6TH SEMESTER B-TECH STUDENT NAVAL ARCHITECTURE & SHIP BUILDING DEPARTMENT OF SHIP TECHNOLOGY COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY KOCHI-682022 AND RESIDING AT SHIVAJI BLOCK NAVAL CONSTRUCTION WING, C-LABS, INS VENDURUTHY NAVAL BASE, KOCHI, PIN-682 004. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SHAJI RESPONDENT(S) : ---------------------------- 1. THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHONOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 022.
2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHONOLGY COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682022. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SC, COCHIN UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0511-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 11592 of 2013 (Y) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : --------------------------------------- EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL RESULT OF CANDIDATES WHO HAVE APPEARED FOR THE B.TECH DEGREE NAVAL ARCHITECTURE AND SHIP BUILDING1T SEMESTER EXAMINATION IN DECEMBER2010 EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL RESULT OF CANDIDATES WHO HAVE APPEARED FOR THE B.TECH DEGREE NAVAL ARCHITECTURE AND SHIP BUILDING3D SEMESTER EXAMINATION IN NOVEMBER2011 EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL RESULT OF CANDIDATES WHO HAVE APPEARED FOR THE B.TECH DEGREE NAVAL ARCHITECTURE AND SHIP BUILDING4H SEMESTER EXAMINATION IN APRIL2012 EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL RESULT OF CANDIDATES WHO HAVE APPEARED FOR THE B.TECH DEGREE NAVAL ARCHITECTURE AND SHIP BUILDING2D SEMESTER EXAMINATION IN APRIL, 2011. EXT.P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL RESULT OF CANDIDATES WHO HAVE APPEARED FOR THE B.TECH DEGREE NAVAL ARCHITECTURE AND SHIP BUILDING2D SEMESTER SUPPLIMENTARY EXAMINATION IN APRIL2012 EXT.P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED ORIGINAL MARK SHEET OF THE PETITIONER IN THE SUBJECT 'ST. 203 ENGINEERING MECHANICS II', IN2D SEMESETER SUPPLEMENTARY EXAMINATION APRIL2012 EXT.P7 A TRUECOPY OF THE DETAILED REVALUATION MARK SHEET OF THE PETITIONER IN THE SUBJECT 'ST. 203 ENGINEERING MECHANICS II' IN2D SEMESTER SUPPLEMENTARY EXAMINATIN APRIL2012 EXT.P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER BOOK OF THE PETITIONER IN THE SUBJECT ST203ENGINEERING MECHANICS II IN THE SUPPLEMENTARY EXAMINATION APRIL2012 EXT.P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION PAPER ALONG WITH THE ANSWER KEY OF THE PETITIONER IN THE SUBJECT ST203ENGINEERING MECHANICS II IN THE2D SEMESTER SUPPLEMENTARY EXAMINATION APRIL2012 EXT.P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED203-13 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE1T RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
--------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.11592 of 2013 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2013 JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a 6th Semester student, who failed in one of the papers in the 2nd Semester examination, for which, he again appeared in the supplementary examination conducted in March-April, 2012, in which, he obtained only 25 marks and hence was declared as failed. The petitioner applied for revaluation. Since there were no upward revision of marks, the petitioner was so informed by the respondent-University and the petitioner was before this Court claiming a second revaluation. Before this Court, the University filed a counter affidavit contending that in fact, on revaluation, the marks obtained by the petitioner was further reduced to 11 and there is no statutory provision for a second revaluation.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on sub clause(2) of Ordinance 10 of the Cochin University of Science and Technology First Ordinances, 2001, to contend that if the revaluation marks are higher than the original marks W.P.(C)No.11592 of 2013 :
2. : by more than 20%, then a second revaluation is stipulated and the same reasoning should be applied in the case of the petitioner, who on revaluation got lower marks than the initial valuation. The said provision cannot be relied on because it applies only in the case of persons, who have been granted upward revision of marks after revaluation. It is also pertinent that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das [2007(4) KLT535, considered the issue of revaluation and found that in the absence of a statutory provision, the courts cannot direct re-assessment or re-examination of answer papers, since there should be finality to the public examinations conducted by any University. In the teeth of the binding precedent, this Court is of the opinion that there can be no second revaluation ordered by this Court in the present writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE. ln