The petitioner seeks revaluation of the mark lists by an expert agency, from outside the University. The issue is squarely covered by the decision in Sruthi Rajagopal v. Mahatma Gandhi University (2014 (2) KLT 945).
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place before this Court another decision of a Division Bench reported in M.G.University v. Millu Dandapani (2000 (1) KLT 351). In fact, what the Division Bench said was that, “where the discretionary exercise of the Court is called for, nothing precludes the Court from exercising such discretionary power in a case like the present case.” It was specifically stated in the operative portion of the judgment that the Writ Appeal was dismissed only in the WP(C).31357/14 2 “peculiar facts and circumstances of the case”. This Court does not find any such peculiarity in the present case and the issue is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision in Sruthi Rajagopal (supra).
The writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN
Judge
Mrcs //True Copy//