K.S. Muhammed Shefin v. University of Kerala and Controller of Examinations, University of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. ASHA
Judgment Date: 2019-09-05
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed. The court held that there is no provision for a second revaluation in the absence of rules, the papers have already been revalued under the Examination Manual, the answer papers are not required to be retained beyond the prescribed period, and the petitioner cannot compel a second revaluation under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.S. Muhammed Shefin

Respondents

The University of Kerala
The Controller of Examinations, University of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Nisha George
• Arun Chandran
• Riji Rajendran
• J. Vishnu
• Vishnu B. Kurup
• A. L. Navaneeth Krishnan
• George Poonthottam (Sr.)

Counsels for Respondents

• Thomas Abraham, SC, University of Kerala

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, a five-year LL.B. student at Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram, filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the University of Kerala to evaluate all his back papers (Exts P6–P15) by an outside examiner and to award him marks based on such evaluation. He had failed two papers in semesters 1, 6, 8, 9 and 10 and had availed revaluation when results were unchanged. He claimed that the University’s motive behind outside evaluation was biased against Government Law College students and that a court directive required outside evaluation; he produced the papers to justify the request. He also asserted that information available under RTI showed the papers existed and should be subject to revaluation. The petitioner argued that revaluation should be possible beyond the first revaluation, and that the papers could be re-examined by outside experts to rectify the errors. The University contended that outside evaluation is only applicable to candidates appearing after 10 May 2018, that the time limit to retain answer papers is six months from publication of results, and that there is no provision for a second revaluation in the Regulations/Examination Manual. The Court found that the papers had already been revalued under the Manual, that there is no provision for a second revaluation, and that the petitioner failed to prove any right to another revaluation; accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

No right to a second revaluation in absence of rules
Retention/disposal of answer papers as per Syndicate decision dated 06.03.2014
It is settled law that, in the absence of rules, there is no right to second revaluation

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that outside examiners should evaluate the back papers (Exts P6–P15) and award marks accordingly. He asserts that the papers exist and that there was a court directive to have outside evaluation; he seeks revaluation under RTI disclosures. He urges that the examination process is biased and that a second external evaluation would rectify alleged errors.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that outside evaluation applies only to those who appeared for examinations from 10 May 2018 onwards; the petitioner appeared before that date. They point out the six-month retention limit for answer papers and that no second revaluation is permissible under the Examination Manual. They contend the papers have already been revalued and that there is no obligation to retain them beyond the prescribed period; RTI disclosures cannot create a right to revaluation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sruthi Rajagopal v. Mahatma Gandhi University	2014 (2) KLT 945	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that, in the absence of enabling rules, a second revaluation cannot be claimed.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 14TH BHADRA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.15561 OF 2019(U)** ## **PETITIONER:** **K.S.MUHAMMED SHEFIN, AGED 24 YEARS, HIRA, T.C.6/1592(1), SN NAGAR, THURUVICKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.** **BY ADVS. SMT.NISHA GEORGE SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN SRI.RIJI RAJENDRAN SRI.J.VISHNU SRI.VISHNU B.KURUP SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 034, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR.** **2 THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 034.** **BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.15561 OF 2019** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** **The petitioner, who is a five year LL.B** **student in Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram, has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent University to evaluate all his back papers pointed out in Exts.P6 to P15 by an outside examiner and to award him marks based on such evaluation.** **2. The petitioner has failed two papers each for semesters 1, 6, 8, 9 and 10. He had applied for revaluation of all the papers. But the results came with no change. He submitted application for scrutiny and found that the evaluation was not made properly. According to the petitioner, there is a calculated view to see that the students of the Government Law College are not passing the examination in order to promote the other Colleges. It is pointed out that on the basis of complaints received from the students and on the basis of a direction from this Court, the Syndicate has taken a decision to get the answer papers of the LL.B** **WP(C).No.15561 OF 2019** **3** **students evaluated by experts from outside. Petitioner therefore claims that his papers are also liable to be evaluated by such experts from outside and in case such evaluation is made he would have passed all the examinations. Producing the answer papers obtained from the University on his application he claims a further evaluation of his answer papers.** **3. The learned Standing Counsel submits that the decision to evaluate the answer papers by outside faculties was taken in respect of those who appear in the examination from 10.05.2018 onwards. The petitioner appeared in the examination prior to 10.05.2018. It is also pointed out that the time limit for retaining the answer papers is only six months from the date of publication of results of the re-valuation. It is also pointed out that the petitioner had not raised any complaint immediately after he availed an opportunity on his application for scrutiny of the answer papers. It is also** **WP(C).No.15561 OF 2019** **4** **stated that a 2[nd] revaluation is not permissible under the rules of Examination Manual unless the revalued marks exceed with the original marks by 10%.** **4. In this case it is stated that results were uploaded in the website of the University on 07.11.2018 after 1[st] semester revaluation, on 26.07.2018 after 8[th] semester revaluation and on 08.10.2018 after 9[th] semester revaluation. As per U.O.No.M&C.1.2/1663/2014 dated 06.03.2014, a decision has been taken to the effect that the answer papers can be disposed of, in case no litigation is pending and therefore it is stated that it was not necessary for the University to retain the answer papers in respect of the petitioner.** **5. The petitioner submits that on the basis of the information received on application under the Right to Information Act, the answer papers should be and are available with the respondent University.** **WP(C).No.15561 OF 2019** **5** **At the same time, the contention of the University is that it is not available in the University. The petitioner also submits that the answer papers he got on application from the University, which are produced in the writ petition, can be sent for revaluation.** **6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, I find that the answer papers of the petitioner have already been revalued in accordance with the Examination Manual. There is no provision for another revaluation as per the** **Regulations/Examination Manual. Therefore petitioner cannot have any right to get the answer papers revalued again. It is settled law that in the absence of the rules, the petitioner cannot have any right to have a 2[nd] revaluation of his answer papers (See** _**Sruthi Rajagopal v. Mahatma Gandhi University**_ **[2014 (2) KLT 945]). Moreover, the respondents have stated that the answer papers are not available with** **WP(C).No.15561 OF 2019** **6** **them as they are not bound to keep them beyond the prescribed time, in accordance with the decision taken by the Syndicate on 06.03.2014. Though the petitioner has disputed the same, this Court is not expected to adjudicate on disputed facts and to direct a 2[nd] revaluation for which there is no provision in the rules.** **In the above circumstances, petitioner does not deserve any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.** **Sd/P.V.ASHA JUDGE** ww **WP(C).No.15561 OF 2019** **7** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 1ST SEMESTER EXAMINATION DATED 23/04/2018.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 6TH SEMESTER EXAMINATION DATED 17/07/2018.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 8TH SEMESTER EXAMINATION DATED 06/04/2018.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 9TH SEMESTER EXAMINATION DATED 08/05/2018.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 10TH SEMESTER EXAMINATION DATED 03/11/2018.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION PAPERS, ANSWER PAPERS AND FACE SHEETS OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE 1ST SEMESTER EXAMINATION.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION PAPERS, ANSWER PAPERS AND FACE SHEETS OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE 1ST SEMESTER EXAMINATION.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION PAPERS, ANSWER PAPERS AND FACE SHEETS OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE 6TH SEMESTER EXAMINATION.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION PAPERS, ANSWER PAPERS AND FACE SHEETS OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE 6TH SEMESTER EXAMINATION.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION PAPERS, ANSWER PAPERS AND FACE SHEETS OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE 8TH SEMESTER EXAMINATION.** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION PAPERS, ANSWER PAPERS AND FACE SHEETS OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE 8TH SEMESTER EXAMINATION.** **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION PAPERS, ANSWER PAPERS AND FACE SHEETS OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE 9TH SEMESTER EXAMINATION.** **WP(C).No.15561 OF 2019** **8** **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION PAPERS, ANSWER PAPERS AND FACE SHEETS OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE 9TH SEMESTER EXAMINATION.** **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION PAPERS, ANSWER PAPERS AND FACE SHEETS OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE 10TH SEMESTER EXAMINATION.** **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION PAPERS, ANSWER PAPERS AND FACE SHEETS OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE 10TH SEMESTER EXAMINATION.** **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY/COMMUNICATION DATED 28.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.**