Rani SelIn Vs. the Director General of Police - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE12H DAY OF FEBRUARY201423RD MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 7212 of 2013 (B) --------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------- HASBI, AGED24YEARS, D/O.SHAMSUDHEEN, WHITE HOUSE, PANNUR KIZHAKOTHU, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DIST BY ADVS.SRI.HARISH R. MENON SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P. O., THENJIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DIST, PIN-673635 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, PAREEKSHA BHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENJIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DIST, PIN-673635 3. THE PRINCIPAL, K M C T DENTAL COLLEGE, MAMPATTA, MANASSERY P.O., MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673602 R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1202-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BP WP(C).No. 7212 of 2013 (B) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : ----------------------- EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE EXAMINATION RESULT OF THE FINAL YEAR B.D.S.PART II EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RE-VALUATION AND PHOTOCOPY OF ANSWER PAPERS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON2010/2011 EXT.P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN RECEIPT DTD2210/2011 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERISTY OF CALICUT. EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET OF PROSTHODONTICS ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET OF CONSERVATIVE DENTISTRY AND ENDODONTICS ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DTD18/2012. EXT.P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD510/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE VICE- CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

DTD178/2011 IN WPC NO135982011. EXT.P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD22/2013. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DTD142/2013 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES : ----------------------- ANNEXUR R1: COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY NOTE NO.RV III/SO/2010 DT239/2010 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE BP K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

===================== W.P.(C) No. 7212 of 2013 ====================== Dated this the 12th day of February, 2014

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of the University, in revaluing the Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) answer papers for the final year examination of B.D.S, conducted in September, 2011. The petitioner assails Ext. P11 order dated 14.02.2013 on the ground that, the contention of the University that the Multiple Choice Question papers cannot be identified is not sustainable. The brief facts for the adjudication of the dispute, are that, the petitioner appeared for the September 2011 final year examination of the B.D.S course, conducted by the 1st respondent University. On the final year examination results being published, the petitioner failed for three subjects, as seen from Ext. P1 mark list. The petitioner admittedly applied for revaluation within the time prescribed. The University conducted the revaluation and W.P.(C) No. 7212 of 2013 2 informed the petitioner that, there was no change in the marks. The revaluation results were published on 05.01.2012.

2. Long afterwards, by a representation, Ext. P7 dated 01.08.2012, the petitioner approached the University for further revaluation and also sought revaluation of the Multiple Choice Question-answer papers. The University did not respond to the same, since by that time, the revaluations were completed and the papers were also not available with the University. The petitioner again after two months, made Ext. P8 representation, dated 05.10.2012, for the very same relief. Again the University did not respond. A further representation was made by the petitioner on 02.02.2013, to which the University replied by Ext. P11, wherein it is stated that, the Multiple Choice Question- answer papers were no longer available with the University. Considering the delay in approaching the University, this Court is of the opinion that, there is nothing unreasonable, W.P.(C) No. 7212 of 2013 3 in the reply given as per Ext. P11 in February 2013; with respect to the examination conducted in September 2011 and the revaluation results published on 05.01.2012.

3. The University has a further contention, as is evidenced from Annexure R1, produced along with the statement filed on its behalf, that, in the year 2010 itself, the Standing Committee on Examinations, had taken a decision that there would be no revaluation of Multiple Choice Question-answer papers. Such decision also cannot be assailed, since it is perfectly reasonable. In Multiple Choice Questions, there is no doubt cast upon the evaluation since there could be no variation in marks awarded. The answer marked is either correct or wrong, entitling the student, to either full or no marks respectively. A variation on account of a 'hawk-dove' effect, meaning by reason of the difference in a tough or liberal evaluation, depending upon the individual predilections of examiners, would be totally absent. W.P.(C) No. 7212 of 2013 4 4. The petitioner's contention is also, on the ground that, Ext. P11 does not reflect such a decision, but in fact rejects the prayer of the petitioner for reason of the answer scripts not being available. This Court has already found that, there is nothing wrong in the University having informed the petitioner that the answer papers are not available, after two years from the date of publication of the revaluation results. This Court is not persuaded to interfere with Ext. P11 on that count also. In any event, the decision taken, evidenced by Annexure R1, long before the petitioner sat for the examination, also cannot be lightly brushed aside. For all the above reasons, the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed, leaving the parties to suffer their costs. Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB