Rajesh K v. Kannur University
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/18TH CHAITHRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 31606 of 2014 (A) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
1. RAJESH K, BANGAD HOUSE, AGED 21, PANAYAL.P.O, KASARAGOD-671318.
2. ZAINABATH LASIMA.P.A, AGED 22, PANLLAM HOUSE, KHAZILANE, THALNAKARA KASARAGOD-671122.
BY ADVS.SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN V.SHANKAR RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. KANNUR UNIVERSITY, THAVAKKARA, KANNUR-670002, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. THE REGISTRAR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, THAVAKKARA, KANNUR-670002.
3. EXAMINATION CONTROLLER, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, THAVAKKARA, KANNUR-670002.
4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.
R1 TO R3 BY SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SC R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.RANJITH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 31606 of 2014 (A) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
------------------------------------- EXT.P1:
TRUE COPY OF THE MARKLIST OF THE IST PETITIONER. EXT.P2:
TRUE COPY OF THE MARKLIST OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P3:
TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.10.2014. EXT.P4:
TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.10.2014. EXT.P5:
TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.10.2014. EXT.P6:
TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.10.2014. EXT.P7:
TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD.
EXT.P8:
TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD.
EXT.P9:
TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD.
EXT.P10:
TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
- NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
==================================== W.P.(C)No.31606 of 2014 ==================================== Dated this the 8th day of April, 2015.
JUDGMENT
Petitioners seek revaluation of examination papers in which they failed. Petitioners are post graduate students in commerce under the respondent University. The University has filed a statement, specifically contending that, for post-graduate course, there is double valuation and there is no question of any revaluation. It is trite that this Court would not interfere with the Regulations of the University, unless the same is discriminatory or arbitrary. There is no arbitrariness in the present Regulations, where the University has, before publication of the results, conducted double valuation. In such circumstance, nothing survives in this writ petition. Writ petition would stand dismissed.
K. Vinod Chandran, Judge.
sl.