## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE**
**THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938**
**WP(C).No. 28024 of 2015 (C) ----------------------------**
## **PETITIONER(S):**
**-------------**
## **1. M.V.VISWABHADRAN**
- **S/O. LATE B.VASU, MUNDUVADACKAL, ERAVUKADU WARD, ALAPPUZHA.**
**2. SREEKANTH K.V.**
**S/O. K.K.VISWANATHAN, KUPPUSSERYIL HOUSE, METHALA P.O., KURUPPUMPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.**
**3. AJMAL HUSSAIN T.A.**
**S/O. ABDUL KAREEM T.A., THACHUVALLATHU, MUPPATHADOM P.O., ALUVA.**
**BY ADV. SRI.JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU)**
## **RESPONDENT(S):**
- **--------------**
**1. M G UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 560.**
**2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION**
- **MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 560.**
**3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 560.**
*** ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED**
**4. HELAN BIVERA D/O.BINET, GAIETY HOUSE, ASARIPARAMBA ROAD, EDAPPALLY PO., COHIN - 682 024.**
**ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20/09/2015 IN I.A 13835/2015**
**R1-R3 BY ADVS. SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY**
**SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J., SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**MLG**
## **WP(C).No. 28024 of 2015 (C)**
**----------------------------**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS**
**-----------------------**
- **P1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. AC.L/1/RV.R/2014/AMENDMENT DTD.24.3.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**
- **P2 : COPIES TRUE COPIES OF MARK SHEETS.**
- **P3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DTD.3.7.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.**
- **P4 : A TRUE COPY OF THE MARK SHEET SHOWING THE ORIGINAL MARKS ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.**
- **P5 : A TRUE COPY OF THE REVALUED MARK SHEET ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.**
**RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL**
**-----------------------**
## **//TRUE COPY//**
**P.S TO JUDGE**
**MLG**
## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * ***
W.P.C.No.28024 of 2015
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 15[th] day of December 2016
## **J U D G M E N T**
Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
_“(i) To declare that sub clause 2 of clause 13 and sub clauses 1 and 4 of clause 14 of amended regulation of the Mahatma Gandhi University Regulations relating to Revaluation and scrutiny of Answer Scripts is irrational, unreasonable, discriminatory and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India._
_(ii) To declare that sub clause 2 of clause 13 of amended regulation of the Mahatma Gandhi University Regulations relating to Revaluation and Scrutiny of Answer Scripts to deny the revalued marks in revaluation to the petitioners is liable to be held arbitrary since it will not stand the test of equality under Article 14 of Constitution of India._
_(iii) To direct the respondents to grant revalued marks in revaluation without insisting the stipulation as per sub clause 2 of clause 13 of the amended regulation of Mahatma Gandhi University Regulations relating to Revaluation_
W.P.C.No.28024/2015
2
_and Scrutiny of Answer Scripts._
_iv) Grant such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit proper considering the facts and circumstances of the case and_
_v) Grant the costs of this writ petition.”_
2. The primary contention urged by the petitioners is that as per the Regulations, notification dated 24/03/2014 issued by the University Regulations have been amended by which certain changes had been made in respect of the marks obtained during re-valuation. The concern of the petitioners is with reference to the Regulation which indicates that unless a candidate has obtained more than 4.99% of the maximum marks, the marks will not be added to the earlier result. According to the petitioners, they got marks more than 45 and the minimum marks required was 50 marks. On revaluation, the mark obtained was less than 4.99% of the maximum marks. Therefore, the University did not consider the same. According to the petitioners, if the revaluation mark is taken, the petitioners would have obtained a pass in the examination. Therefore, the petitioners challenge the relevant clause in the notification.
W.P.C.No.28024/2015
3
3. Sub Clause (2) of Clause 13 of Ext.P1 is relevant clause which reads as under:
|**_Sl.No._**|**_Existing Regulations_**|**_Amended Regulations_**|
|---|---|---|
|13(2)|The original marks/grade points<br>awarded to a candidate will stand<br>as such in cases of the<br>marks/grade points awarded after<br>revaluation is less than the<br>original marks or higher up to<br>4.99% of the maximum<br>marks/0.49 grade point.|The original marks/grade points<br>awarded to a candidate will stand<br>as such in cases where the<br>marks/grade points awarded after<br>revaluation is less than the<br>original marks or higher up to<br>4.99% of the maximum<br>marks/grade point. However, for<br>candidates who have already<br>scored 95.1% or more marks in<br>original valuation, a change in<br>marks which is even less than 5%<br>of the maximum marks shall also<br>be awarded to secure maximum<br>(i.e.100%) marks.|
4. Petitioners submit that in respect of the candidates who had obtained more than 95.1% marks, on revaluation they were entitled for the entire marks obtained on revaluation even if it is less than 4.99%. In respect of other students who did not get up to 95.1 marks, such a benefit is not extended. This amounts to a discrimination and therefore the aforesaid clause is liable to be quashed. Petitioners submit that the entire marks obtained during revaluation has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of awarding the revalued marks.
W.P.C.No.28024/2015
4
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the University of Kerala, by Ext.P6, had amended the Regulation by which permission has been granted to publish the revalued results in respect of candidates who had more than 95.1% in the examination. In respect of other candidates whose marks were less than 95.1%, there is no change in the Regulations.
6. I do not think that the petitioners can challenge the Regulation Ext.P1 on the ground that there is discrimination. The Regulation framed by the University applies to all the students and they are put to notice regarding the manner in which revaluation and scrutiny of answer scripts are being done. The University, being an academic body framed under the relevant University Act, is entitled to take its own decision in the matter relating to the academic standards. Revaluation is one method adopted by the University for the purpose of enabling the students to have a revaluation of their answer scripts. While conducting such revaluation, it might be an instance where the marks obtained will be more or it might be less as well. Revaluation is done through another agency and therefore there is every possibility of a different valuation being done in the
W.P.C.No.28024/2015
5
matter. Under such circumstances, for taking a reasonable and probable view with reference to the marks obtained, the University has prescribed a criteria to grant additional marks only if the revalued marks is more than 4.99% of the actual marks obtained by the students. When the Rules apply to all the students, I do not think that there can be any discrimination warranting interference by this Court in respect of the aforesaid Regulation.
7. As far as the students who had obtained more than 95.1% marks is concerned, they stand in a different category altogether. In that case, revaluation is only to the extent of 4.99% which will have a bearing on the ranking position as well. Probably, it is on account of a situation, in order to give maximum marks obtained by such candidates, such a provision had been incorporated. Since there is a difference in classification depending on the marks obtained, I do not think that the students who had not obtained a pass mark can be compared to those persons who had already obtained more than 95% marks. Both stand in a different footing. Therefore, it is well within the jurisdiction of the University to have such a Regulation in order to
W.P.C.No.28024/2015
6
ensure that the candidate gets the maximum marks. I do not think that the petitioners have ventilated any grievance in this writ petition warranting interference by this Court, I do not agree with the contention that there is arbitrariness in the decision. Merely for the reason that Kerala University has taken a different view, does not mean that Mahatma Gandhi University should adopt the same method.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners place reliance upon the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in **Manabjyoti Duarah v. Dibrugarh University and Others** _[2011 KHC 2025]_ . That was a case in which the students challenged Clause (6) of an Ordinance by which the University was empowered to take the average of marks awarded by the original examiner and the reevaluation examiner as the marks obtained on the re-evaluation done pursuant to the provisions contained in Clause 70 of the 1972 Ordinance. The High Court held that Re-evaluation is an act or process of evaluating or ascertaining again the marks which an examinee is entitled to secure in respect of any answer scripts _._ Gauhati High Court referred to the purpose of re-evaluation in paragraph 11 of the judgment, which reads as under:
W.P.C.No.28024/2015
7
_“_ _**11.** Re-evaluation is an act or process of evaluating or ascertaining again the marks which an examinee is entitled to secure in respect of any answer scripts. The purpose of such re-evaluation is to eliminate the mistake that may have been committed by the original examiner in evaluating the answer scripts, so that the examinee does not suffer because of such mistake. In a given case the original examiner by mistake or otherwise may award lesser marks, thereby depriving an examinee from the marks to which he is entitled to and such mistake can be cured by a process of reevaluation so that the deserving examinee can be allotted the marks he deserves and for that purpose only, the provisions for re-evaluation of the answer scripts is incorporated in the Statute / Ordinance of different Universities including the respondent University.”_
However, on the basis of the particular facts, it is found that Clause 6 was arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust and violates constitutional mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. I do not think that the factual situation which has arisen in the present case and in the case referred above has any connection.
W.P.C.No.28024/2015
8
For that reason, I am not persuaded by the view taken by the Gauhati High Court.
There being no other reason for this Court to interfere with the Regulation framed by the University, this writ petition is dismissed.
(sd/-)
**==> picture [258 x 13] intentionally omitted <==**
jsr
