M.G.GRASIUS Vs. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the Principal of a Self - financing Engineering College, who allegedly is before this Court representing students who have been denied the benefit of revaluation. The petitioner contends that the results were published as per Ext.P1 dated 12.12.2013. With respect to M.Sc Biochemistry and M.A Sociology, the last date for submission of applications for revaluation was specified, in Ext.P1 itself, but with respect to the B.Tech course no date was specified. In such circumstance, it is submitted that students bonafide believed that the last date of submission of application would be at least 21 days from the date of publication of the results, as was the practice in vogue. Applications were made on 27.12.2013, is the submission across the bar, which were not accepted and were returned. It is submitted that this puts to serious prejudice, almost 96 students who had appeared for the examination, and were thoroughly dis -satisfied with the marks they obtained.

(2.) THOUGH a question of locus standi of the Principal who filed the above writ petition is raised, this Court is of the opinion that the same need not detain this Court especially, when the revaluation of examination papers of the students are concerned. But however, it is pertinent that it is the responsibility of the students by themselves to make the applications for revaluation and that too directly and not through the College and none of the students are before this Court. In fact, the Principal of the College himself produced Exts.P4 and P5 notifications of the University dated 11.12.2013 and 7.7.2012 respectively. Ext.P4 specifically indicated that the last date for submission of application for revaluation of answer scripts is, on or before 27.12.2013. Ext.P6 is a notification regarding the regulations pertaining to the Revaluation and Scrutiny of Answer Scripts applicable to the University. The petitioner contends that the College had not received either of the said notifications and that it had been subsequently obtained from the University.

(3.) IN any event, it is to be noticed that no application for revaluation said to have been filed on 28.12.2013 as submitted across the bar, has been produced before this Court. It is pertinent that the Principal does not at all make any averment in the writ petition as to the date of submission of the application or remittance of fees, by the so called 96 students. What is produced is Ext.P7; said to be one of the applications filed by one of the students, which is dated 19.12.2013. It is also pertinent that when an application is submitted, the students are required to pay the fee for revaluation and produce the cash receipt of the Cash Counter of the University or Demand Draft drawn in favour of the Finance Officer of the University, and enclose it along with the application. Though a copy of a filled up chalan has been produced as Ext.P7 it is to be noticed that no remittance has been made before the University Cash Counter since the chalan produced does not show the receipt of the cash at the Cash Counter.