MANJITH.V, MANISH.K.M, REMYA.R, RINJU PAPPACHAN, SALINRAJ.K, LEJI.P.G, ALLWYN.P.V, ANU JOY, NAVINAR SAVAD.K.Y, PRAMOD KRISHNAN.T, RAKHI M.S. & SHAFY.S v. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY & THE SYNDICATE & THE VICE-CHANCELLOR & THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2014/14TH CHAITHRA, 1936** ## **WP(C).No. 7360 of 2014 (T)** ## **---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** - **--------------------------** **1. MANJITH.V, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.M.MOHANAN, MANJUSH, VADAKKUMPAD P.O., THALASSERY, KANNUR- 670 105.** **2. MANISH.K.M, AGED 26 YEARS,S/O.K.MADHAVAN, KUNNUPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDATHALA NORTH P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683 564.** **3. REMYA.R, AGED 22 YEARS,D/O.RAMASWAMY.K, THIRUVONAM VEEDU, VENGANOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM- 695 523.** **4. RINJU PAPPACHAN,AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.PAPPACHAN.P.K, POOVELY HOUSE, NAYATHODE P.O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM- 683 572.** **5. SALINRAJ.K, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.SURENDRAN.K, KOLLERI HOUSE, KAKKODI (VIA), KIZHAKKUMMURI P.O, KOZHIKODE.** **6. LEJI.P.G, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.GOPALAN NAIR.P.R, PARAMATTU HOUSE, VADACODE P.O.,KOCHI-682 021.** **7. ALLWYN.P.V, AGED 26 YEARS,S/O.VINCENT.P.V, PULIKEN HOUSE, CHENTRAPINNI EAST P.O., THRISSUR-680 687** **8. ANU JOY, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.A.L.JOY, ALUVA HOUSE, NARAKKAL P.O., PERUMPILLY, ERNAKULAM-682 505** **9. NAVINAR SAVAD.K.Y, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.YOUSUF.K.V, TURUTHUMMAL, H.NO.39/87, TOPPIL ROAD, THRIKKAKARA P.O, ERNAKULAM -682 021.** **10. PRAMOD KRISHNAN.T, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, MOHAN NIVAS, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA P.O, KOCHI 682 503.** **11. RAKHI M.S., AGED 23 YEARS, D/O.M.MATHEN, POTTENCHIRA KIZHAKKUMKARA, PUTHENVEEDU, MARUTHAMALA P.O, PIN -695 551.** **2/-** **sts** **-2-** ## **WP(C)NO.7360/2014** **12. SHAFY.S, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.A.SUBAIRKUTTY, AL AMAL, KADATHOOR P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM -690 523.** **BY ADVS.SRI.D.G.VIPIN** ## **SRI.KAROL MATHEWS SEBASTIAN ALENCHERRY** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **----------------------------** **1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI -682 022, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.** ## **2. THE SYNDICATE** **COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI -682 022 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** **3. THE VICE- CHANCELLOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI-682 022** **4. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI-682 022** **R1 TO R4 BY SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI,SC, COCHIN UNIVERSITY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-04-2014,ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.8968/2014 AND WP(C)NO.9276/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **WP(C).No. 7360 of 2014 (T) ---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **-------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1(A) TO P1(I) COPIES OF THE FINAL YEAR MARK LISTS OF THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 12 IN THEIR B.TECH EXAMINATION** **EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/12/2013 SENT BY THE 5TH PETITONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATIN ACT DATED 1/1/2014 SENT BY THE 10TH PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 13/1/2014 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P5(A) TO P5(I) COPIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL REQUESTS DATED 11/2/2014 BY THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 12 TO 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6(A) TO P6(I) COPIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTATIONS DATED 15/2/2014 BY THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 12 TO 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7(A) TO P7(1) COPIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTATIONS DATED 15/2/2014 BY THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 12 TO 3RD RESPONDENT** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: -----------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT R1(A) COPY OF THE ORDER NO.UO NO.EH/RV/II/MISC/99, DATED 6/5/2010 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. ===================== W.P.(C) Nos. 7360 of 2014, 8968 of 2014 & 9276 of 2014 ============================ Dated this the 4[th] day of April, 2014** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioners in all the above Writ Petitions, are M.Tech students pursuing their post graduate studies in V.L.S.I and Embedded System. The petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of the request for revaluation of the examination papers of the first semester which examination was held in January 2013 and the results published in December 2013. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 9276 of 2014 contend that, there was mass failure in two subjects being “Designing with Micro Controllers” and “Computer Communication Networks”. The petitioners in the other two Writ Petitions are also concerned with the first of the subjects referred to herein above. They have an additional grievance respectively with the valuation of the papers in 'System on Chip Design' and “ Embedded and Real Time Systems”. 2. The 5[th] petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9276 of 2014 is W.P.(C) Nos. 7360 of 2014 & connected cases **2** said to have raised a complaint with the Vice Chancellor, as per Ext.P3, for and on behalf of all the students. The concerned Assistant Professor, who is said to have taught them the subject of Designing with Micro Controllers, also seems to have made a representation to the Controller of Examinations by Ext.P4. The students in the complaint, pointed out, on the basis of the question paper that, the questions were generally direct and least challenging and despite they having answered it well; 9 out of the 24 students failed to qualify in the said subject. The students, even in Ext.P3, conceded to the position that there was no system for revaluation and moderation scheme for M.Tech course and hence requested the papers to be sent to an Expert Committee. The Assistant Professor, who is said to have taught them, also raised similar apprehension and expressed his anguish over, students with good academic record, having failed to acquire the minimum pass marks. 3. The petitioners also applied under the Right to Information Act, as is evidenced from Ext.P5 for which answers has been supplied by the University as per Ext.P6. W.P.(C) Nos. 7360 of 2014 & connected cases **3** The petitioners seek for a mandamus directing revaluation of answer papers in two subjects in all the Writ Petitions one of which is Designing with Micro Controllers and the other as noticed above. The common ground is the alleged slip-shod valuation said to have been conducted and the University having not followed the norms in appointing qualified examiners. It is to be immediately noticed that the petitioners but for making a bland assertion; does not specifically point out any rule or regulation, which is violated by the University in the matter of appointing examiners. The contention, in fact, is urged on the strength of a stray sentence in the counter affidavit of the University, which will be dealt with shortly. 4. The University has filed a counter affidavit contending that, there is no system of revaluation as far as M.Tech courses are concerned, since the method of initial evaluation itself is one of double valuation. The system provides for a third evaluation only in the context of the marks in the two initial evaluations being far apart to the extent of 10% of the maximum marks. The University has W.P.(C) Nos. 7360 of 2014 & connected cases **4** ## also quoted from its First Ordinance of 2001, which is as ## follows: For post graduate examinations, if the marks awarded in two valuations differ from each other beyond permissible limits (10% of maximum marks) a third valuation shall be done by the passing board. In such cases, the third valuation marks shall be awarded to the candidate. In other cases, the averages (average of I and II valuation marks) will be awarded. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is evident from the counter affidavit, that the evaluation was conducted by holders of graduate degree of B.Tech alone and that they would not be qualified to examine papers of an M.Tech student. It is also contended on the strength of Ext.R1(a) produced by the University that, the University obviously has not, in the present examinations, provided a key of evaluation, which is evidenced by the answer given to question No.4, in the reply to the query (Ext.P6), under the Right to Information Act. The query regarding the existence of the answer key was answered in the negative by the University. It is in such circumstance, the learned counsel would contend that, the evaluation carried on by the University was not according to the W.P.(C) Nos. 7360 of 2014 & connected cases **5** regulations and hence, it is highly necessary that a third evaluation be ordered by this Court. 6. Primarily, the complaint on the ground of the mass failure, raised in Exts. P3 and P4, was only with respect to the subject “Designing with Micro Controllers”. The Writ Petitions have been filed grouping together the students who failed in the second subject, while all the petitioners failed in the subject complained of in Ext.P3. The subsequent complaint raised with respect to the other subjects, is only an after thought and has to be rejected at the out set. Even with respect to the subject “Designing with Micro Controllers”, the contention of the students as also the teacher is that, students having good academic record have failed. That alone is not a reason for directing revaluation especially in the context of the regulations of the University, prohibiting such revaluation. 7. It is also to be observed that, the statistics revealed from Ext.P3 complaint shows that, majority of the students qualified in the examinations. The contention of the petitioners based on the counter affidavit filed by the W.P.(C) Nos. 7360 of 2014 & connected cases **6** University in W.P.(C) No.7360 of 2014 that, B.Tech graduates were involved in the valuation is misplaced. What has been contended by the University is that, the answer books were evaluated first by the teacher who handles the particular subject in the concerned institution and then by an external examiner, who has the qualification of B.Tech and M.Tech as also six years of teaching experience in the concerned subjects. The argument seems to be on account of the fact that there was no necessity to specific B.Tech, when the external examiner had an M.Tech degree. This Court is not convinced that, the statement made by the University, would indicate that any of the teachers engaged were having only graduate qualification. The mis-construction of a sentence cannot be harped upon, especially in a Court of law, to urge a ground which is otherwise incapable of being proved. This Court has already noticed that the grounds urged in the Writ Petition do not at all speak of violation of a specific rule or regulation. 8. The next contention is based on Ext.R1(a). Again, it W.P.(C) Nos. 7360 of 2014 & connected cases **7** is to be noticed that, the University's contention in the counter affidavit is that, there is no system of revaluation for M.Tech courses, being a post graduate course; wherein a system of double valuation is in vogue. Any discrepancy caused by reason of individual predilections of examiners would be reasonably mitigated by a double valuation system where an internal examiner and external examiner evaluates the examination papers, independently. A gross difference to the extent of more than 10% of the total marks, is also taken into account, by the University, by having a system by which, in the event of the said contingency; a third evaluation is also provided for. 9. Ext.R1(a), it has to be noticed, is a general order issued by the University with respect to examinations in which, there is a system of revaluation, introduced and continued. The contention based on the reply to the query under Right to Information Act, is fundamentally untenable, for, there could be no key provided for a descriptive examination. In any event it has been found that Ext.R1(a) is a general order and cannot be relied on in toto as being W.P.(C) Nos. 7360 of 2014 & connected cases **8** applicable to post graduate examination. 10. The University necessarily carries on different and varied courses both in the graduate and the post graduate level and the system of revaluation is absent only in the M.Tech course; again by reason of system of double valuation having been introduced. Clause(2) of Ext.R1(a) provides for a time limit of one month to make applications from the date of revaluation. Clause(3) requires the Revaluation Section to arrange for furnishing the copies on receiving the applications. Obviously the system has application only to examinations which provide for revaluation. The University does, in its counter affidavit, aver that Ext.R1(a) enables the petitioners also to seek for copies of answer sheets, but only on application, as provided therein, within the time prescribed. Revaluation being non-existent for post graduation, such students would at least secure both the marks obtained on double valuation; seems to be the trend of the counter. Admittedly petitioners have not made any applications as prescribed in Ext.R1(a). W.P.(C) Nos. 7360 of 2014 **9** & connected cases 11. It is also trite that, this Court cannot overreach the regulations of the University and direct revaluation especially when the regulations prohibit the same. This Court is fortified in taking such view by the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in **West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das in [2007(4) KLT 535]** and **Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others in [(1984) 4 SCC 27]** The Writ Petitions hence are devoid of merit and dismissed without costs. Sd/- **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE** SB