AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The petitioner herein has appeared for 1st year MBBS Examination conducted by the 1st respondent University in September 2011. When the result was declared on 21.12.2011, the petitioner was shown as failed in Anatomy paper by six marks. Then the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent for a photocopy of the answer sheet and the same was given to her without score sheet. Even thought she had sought for a facility of revaluation, she was informed that there is no such provision for revaluation in the Kerala University of Health Sciences Act, 2010. Ext.P2 is the representation sent by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent seeking revaluation. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner later appeared for the supplementary examination. Going by the result of the supplementary examination, she has passed in the said paper.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even though she has been declared as passed in the supplementary examination, if the result of the examination conducted in September 2011 is declared in her favour she will not lose her six months duration of the course. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent University opposes the prayers of the petitioner. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. It is pointed out in the statement that double valuations are prescribed for under-graduate theory examinations by the University. Second valuation is carried out by a second examiner as soon as the first valuation is over and the mark is taken as the average of the two valuations. Again, if there is difference more than 15% of the total marks in the two valuations, a third valuation is conducted by a third examiner and the effective mark in this case is taken as the average of any two nearer marks. The above valuation strategy has been approved by the Academic Council held on 17.03.2012 and later ratified by the General Council on 15.05.2012. It is therefore pointed out that unless there is a specific provision enabling a revaluation as sought for, this Court cannot direct the University to consider the prayer of the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a direction to the Vice Chancellor to consider Ext.P2 representation. I am not expressing anything on the merits of the matter and the Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the Vice Chancellor to furnish reply to the petitioner on Ext.P2 within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment.