High CourtsSingle Bench(2023) 10 KL CK 0055

Akhil Raj N R vs Vice Chancellor University Of Calicut, Thenhipalam P.O, Malappuram, Pin 673636

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 12 October 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
T.R. Ravi, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 22468 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 606 words

T.R. Ravi, J

1.

The writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respondents to publish the revaluation results of supplementary examination pursuant to Ext.P3 receipt immediately and for a declaration that the petitioner has passed the supplementary examination pursuant to Ext.P3 receipt, if the answer sheet of the petitioner is not available with the University. There is also a prayer for compensating the petitioner with an amount of ₹5 lakhs as damages sustained by the petitioner due to non-publication of the result of supplementary examination which was written by the petitioner. The basis of the prayer is that the petitioner had approached the University for revaluation as evidenced by Ext.P3. Ext.P3 only shows that an amount of ₹625/- has been paid to the University towards revaluation/scrutiny/photocopy. The petitioner has not produced any revaluation application along with the said receipt to show that he had in fact applied for revaluation. Be that as it may, two years later he approached the Lok Adalath held at Koyilandy, in which Ext.P4 order was passed on 08.07.2017 directing the respondent University to conduct revaluation, subject to the availability of the papers in this regard. The petitioner was also directed to apply afresh stating the details of papers for which he had already applied for revaluation. Even though the petitioner states that he had approached the University personally, there is nothing in evidence to show that he had complied with the direction issued in Ext.P4 by applying afresh stating the details of the papers. According to him, the University had informed him that they are in the process of revaluation and he may not have to apply. Except for such a statement, there is nothing to show the veracity of the same. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 representation before the respondents on 10.06.2023. Ext.P6 is the Consolidated Grade Card of the petitioner.

2.

Respondents 1 & 2 have filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner had studied for B.Sc Physics from Government Arts & Science College, Madapally during 2010-2013 and he had cleared all subjects, except Quantum Mechanics and Physical and Modern Optics in the fifth semester. It is submitted that he attended supplementary examination for the papers Quantum Mechanics and Physical and Modern Optics in 2013 and 2014. The results were published in time and as per the results, the petitioner had failed the examination. It is admitted that a sum of ₹625/- was received for the purpose of revaluation of a single paper, but no application for revaluation is submitted. It is submitted that since no applications have been filed for revaluation even after Ext.P4 order, the University could not conduct any revaluation. It is further submitted that as per the University Orders, if no revaluation application is received the answer scripts will be disposed. In the case on hand, it is stated that examination was conducted in 2013 & 2014 and the answer scripts are no longer available with the University and were disposed of years back.

3.

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents.

4.

This Court cannot come in aid of the petitioner in view of the facts that have been disclosed. Even though the petitioner had approached the Lok Adalath six years back, there is nothing to show that he has pursued with any further application. The only application which has been placed before the Court is a representation filed five years later. There is no obligation for the University to permit revaluation without any proper application in that regard.

No grounds are made out. Writ petition fails and is dismissed.