MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY Vs. SUNI THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in this writ appeal was a three-year LLB student at Govt. Law College Ernakulam, affiliated to the 1st respondent Mahatma Gandhi University. He filed W.P.(C) No.29128 of 2019 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash regulation 14.2 of Ext.P5 notification to the extent it mandates second revaluation if the increase in the marks after the first revaluation is greater than or equal to 15% of the maximum marks of the paper; to declare that regulation 14.2 of Ext.P5 as unreasonable and violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant him marks equivalent to 15% of the maximum marks of the revalued answer paper of the subject legal language, i.e., 12 marks, in the first-semester examination held on May 2018. As per the impugned judgment dtd. 16/12/2020, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, and the regulation in question was set aside. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed the above writ appeal under Sec. 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.

(2.) According to the appellant, she performed well in the first-semester examination held in the month of May 2018 and the result was published in the month of January 2019. Except in the subject legal language, the appellant secured high marks. For the subject legal language she was awarded only 38 marks out of 80. She had performed well in that examination also. Therefore, the appellant submitted an application for revaluation of the answer paper of the subject legal language. But as per Ext.P1 memo dtd. 24/8/2019, the 2nd respondent Controller of Examinations informed her that she was awarded the original marks after revaluation also. Thereafter the appellant filed Ext.P2 application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 requesting for the details of the marks obtained by her in the revaluation, as she got reliable information from the university that her paper was revalued twice. As per Ext.P3 reply dtd. 18/9/2019, the 1st respondent University intimated the appellant that she secured 53 out of 80 marks in the first revaluation and 33 out of 80 marks in the second revaluation. It was further informed that as per regulations, if the increase in the marks in the first revaluation is greater than or equal to 15% of the maximum marks of the paper, a second revaluation shall be conducted. After the second revaluation, the average of the nearest two marks from the three valuations, that is the original valuation, the first revaluation and the second revaluation shall be awarded. If the marks after the first revaluation or the average after the second revaluation happens to be less than the original marks, the original score will stand. Contending this regulation as arbitrary and unjust the appellant approached this Court with the writ petition. The respondents filed a statement in the writ petition sticking on Ext.P5 notification pertaining to the amendment of some of the existing university regulations. After considering the materials on record and hearing the rival contentions of both sides, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition as said above.

(3.) Heard the learned Standing counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent.