ESTHER ANU PATHROSE,D/O.PATHROSE versus MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY

High Court of Kerala

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

ESTHER ANU PATHROSE,D/O.PATHROSE v. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY - WP(C) No. 16811 of 2007(B) [2007] RD-KL 9556 (6 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 16811 of 2007(B)

1. ESTHER ANU PATHROSE,D/O.PATHROSE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
... Respondent

2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,

3. THE PRINCIPAL, M.O.S.C.MEDICAL COLLEGE,

For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW A KUZHALANADAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :06/06/2007

O R D E R

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

W.P.(C)NO.16811 OF 2007

DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF JUNE, 2007

JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. The learned standing counsel for the University argues on getting instructions. The petitioner is a final year M.B.B.S. student of the 3rd respondent's college. The petitioner failed in two subjects in the second year M.B.B.S. Examination. The petitioner applied for scrutiny and revaluation for the failed subjects. He also wrote the supplementary examination conducted in May 2007. The petitioner submits that since the University has not either revalued her answer scripts or published the results of the supplementary examination, the petitioner should be allowed to write the final year examination subject to the results of the revaluation as well as the supplementary examination.

2. The learned standing counsel on instructions submits that the petitioner's application for revaluation was belated and the Vice Chancellor condoned the delay only on 18.5.07 and the respondents would require at least two more months' time to complete the revaluation process. In respect of the supplementary examination, the learned standing counsel would submit that what the petitioner has written in May 2007 is not a supplementary examination. According to  W.P.(c)No.16811/07 2 him, the supplementary examination for the petitioner's batch was conducted in December 2006, which the petitioner did not write. The present examination is the regular examination which the petitioner write along with the regular students of the next batch. As such the petitioner cannot claim that she should be allowed to write the examination pending declaration of results of the supplementary examination. After hearing the learned standing counsel, I direct the respondents to complete the revaluation process, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

3. Regarding the prayer for permitting the petitioner to write the final year examination, I am not inclined to grant the prayer since according to me as far as MBBS examinations are concerned, a strict view has to be taken, as these students after passing the MBBS examination, are expected to treat the public and therefore they should pass examinations in the hard way. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

Acd  W.P.(c)No.16811/07 3 

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.