Binoy G. John v. Mahatma Gandhi University
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/25TH BHADRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 27053 of 2015 (F) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:
------------------ BINOY G. JOHN, S/O.JOHN GEEVARGHESE, BINOY NIVAS, CHENNITHALA P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA 690105.
BY ADVS.SRI.MADHU N.NAMBOOTHIRIPAD SRI.C.E.MANOJ NAIR RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM 686 560.
2. VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM 686 560.
3. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM 686 560.
BY SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 27053 of 2015 (F) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 :
TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE SUBSIDIARY/SUPPLEMENTARY EXAMINATION HELD IN MARCH 2012 DATED 12.10.2012 BEARING REG.NO.17100 EXHIBIT P2 :
TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST BEARING REG.NO.1225051 OF THE PETITONER DATED 31.10.2012 EXHIBIT P3 :
TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20.04.2015 ADDRESSED TO THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT P4 :
TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS OF MG UNIVERISITY DATED 25.08.2015 EXHIBIT P5 :
TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF APPOINTMENT ISSUED BY GULF SUPPLIES, KINGDOM OF BEHRAIN DATED 10.03.2015 EXHIBIT P6 :
TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 20.08.2015 SENT BY THE GULF SUPPLIES, KING OF BEHRAIN RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE.
V. CHITAMBARESH, J -------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 27053 OF 2015 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of September, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner could write the supplementary examination only if he had failed in the regular examination. The petitioner did fail in the regular examination and sat for the supplementary examination. But the petitioner eventually passed in the regular examination on revaluation. 2.
It is ofcourse true that the petitioner has obtained better marks in the supplementary examination. But those marks cannot be reckoned when he has already passed in the regular examination. The petitioner cannot tack on the marks in the supplementary examination to the regular examination. A consolidated mark list as sought by the petitioner cannot be issued.
3.
The stand of the respondent University in this regard is well justified. I do not find any ground to entertain this writ petition.
The Writ Petition is dismissed.
V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE ncd