Usha Jose vs The Mahatma Gandhi University and The Controller of Examinations

A.K. Basheer, J.—Since a common issue is involved in this batch of writ appeals, they have been taken up for hearing together, as agreed by learned Counsel on either side in all these case.

These writ appeals are directed against an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in the pending writ petitions. Since the order that we pass will effectively put an end to the grievance of the appellants in the pending writ petitions, they are also taken up for hearing along with these writ appeals as agreed by the learned Counsel in all the cases.

The common grievance of the appellants is that because of the delay on the part of the University to complete the process of revaluation of the answer scripts of the examination held by the University some time back, they are not being permitted to write the examinations for the first and fourth year B.Sc Nursing examination scheduled to commence from November 24 and 20th respectively. The learned Single Judge in his interim order declined to grant permission to the appellants to write the examination provisionally without waiting for the result of the revaluation.

We do not propose to consider the merit or demerit of the various contentions raised by the appellants or the learned Standing Counsel for the University at this juncture in view of the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case.

Though the contention now raised by the appellants on the face of it cannot be entertained, still we feel that the inaction on the part of the University to complete the process of revaluation is totally unjustifiable particularly since, admittedly the applications submitted by the appellants for revaluation have been pending since July 2009. The delay has contributed to the present dilemma and hardships that these students now face.

Needless to mention, the University has a duty to ensure that the future of students is not made a subject matter of litigation. It must also be ensured that the opportunity that may be available to these students to obtain some employment, as soon as they complete their course, is not hampered by any inaction on its part. Universities should always strive to see that examinations are held on schedule and valuation of the answer scripts is completed within a time frame so that those students who pass out from their respective institutions get an opportunity to gain employment or obtain a seat outside the State for higher studies.

Of course, we place on record the submission made by the Standing Counsel for the University that the delay occurred because of lack of sufficient infrastructure and staff; but still, in our view, this cannot be an excuse. Any how, we do not propose to dwell on this subject any further.

Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances and particularly keeping in view that more than 75 students are involved in this batch of Writ Appeals, we dispose of them all with the following directions:

a) The University shall complete the process of revaluation of those answer scripts in respect of which applications for revaluation have been submitted between June to August, 2009 within a period of two months from today, provided the applications are in order and requisite fee has been paid and other conditions are satisfied.

b) Those applications for revaluation which have been submitted in November, 2009 shall be attended to and the process of revaluation of papers shall be completed within three months from today.

c) As soon as the revaluation under Clause (a) is completed, the University shall hold examinations after intimating the results to the students, within two months of the publication of the revaluation result.

d) The University shall hold supplementary examinations for all subjects concerned within an outer limit of six months from today. All the Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions are disposed of as above.