The petitioner is a student who completed the B.Sc (Maths) course conducted in the year 2010-2013. Admittedly the petitioner failed in two subjects in the 6th semester. She appeared again in those two subjects in March, 2014. The petitioner asserts that in revaluation, she was not granted higher marks only because of an interdiction in the Regulation that enhanced marks will be awarded only if there is difference of 5% on revaluation. The said stipulation is upheld by the judgment of a Division Bench in W.A.2277 of 2012.
2. The Division Bench followed another judgment of this Court reported in University of Kerala v. Alex Saji (1997 (2) KLT 100), which found the regulation to be neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. It was held by this Court that the regulation was made only in the context of any independent valuation by two different examiners WP(C).28700/14 2 could result in a nominal difference in marks and hence the stipulation of 5% limit. Going by the binding precedent, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the regulation of the University.
3. The next contention is with respect to the application for photocopy of the answer sheets not being allowed as per Ext.P5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University however, submits that Ext.P5 specifically rejected the said prayer by reason of the application not having been made within the time provided. In such circumstances, the petitioner having not made an application for photocopy of the answer sheets, in time, there is nothing wrong in Ext.P5.
4. Further contention is raised on the basis of grades issued at Ext.P1. The learned counsel would specifically point to the marks obtained in the papers 'Real Analysis' and 'Complex Analysis' in the 6th semester wherein the petitioner has respectively got 'B' grade and WP(C).28700/14 3 'A' grade in the internal evaluation and 'D' grade only in the external evaluation. The petitioner was declared as failed only because she failed to get the average 'C' grade required for pass. This Court cannot find the Regulation introducing a specific grade for enabling a student to pass the final examination to be bad nor can any interference be made on that aspect. Further, it is to be noticed that the petitioner's contention is based on Ext.P1 mark list issued in the year 2013. The same is not the subject matter of challenge herein, since the petitioner had repeated the examination in March, 2014 and revaluation of that later examination is assailed in the instant writ petition.
For all the above reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN
Judge
Mrcs //True Copy//