A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

1. The University of Kerala, the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.14788 of 2013, is the appellant before us. The writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P3 interim order passed by the Kerala Lok Ayukta directing the appellant to revalue the answer paper of a student in the subject of Management Accounting.

2. The student in question, the 1st respondent herein, had approached the Lok Ayukta alleging negligence and maladministration on the part of the appellant University in the matter of valuation of her answer paper. By securing 20 marks in the subject of Management Accounting, she had failed to secure the minimum pass mark of 35 out of 100 and in the first revaluation, she could secure only 22 marks. As this was against her expectation, and the Regulations of the University did not permit a second revaluation, she approached the Lok Ayukta with a complaint alleging negligence and maladministration on the part of the University.

3. The appellant filed a detailed statement of objections before the Lok Ayukta pointing out, inter alia, that the low marks secured by the student was on account of her poor performance and further that in denying her the benefit of a second revaluation, it was only abiding by the statutory Regulations. The Lok Ayukta, however, pending consideration of the main issue as to whether or not there was any negligence or maladministration on the part of the appellant, and presumably on sympathetic grounds, proceeded to issue Ext.P3 interim order directing the appellant to revalue the answer paper of the student. This led the appellant to file the writ petition that was dismissed by the judgment impugned in this appeal.

4. We have heard the Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant University and Adv. Smt. Renu appearing on behalf of the Lok Ayukta. The learned standing counsel for the appellant University would point out that as per the statutory Regulations governing revaluation of answer papers, the 1st respondent student was not entitled to seek a revaluation. The relevant portion of the statutory Regulations that was referred to is reproduced hereunder:

After the revaluation, results shall be finalized as follows:-

(a) The original marks secured by the candidate shall not be changed in the following cases.

(i) If the revalued marks are less than the marks secured in the original valuation.

(ii) If the marks exceed the marks secured in the original valuation by less than 4% of the maximum marks of the paper.

(b) If the revalued marks exceed the marks secured in the original valuation by 4% to 10% of the maximum marks, the revalued marks shall be taken as the final marks, and the marks secured by the candidates in the original valuation shall be changed accordingly.

(c) If the revalued marks are higher than the original marks by more than 10% of the maximum marks of the paper, a second revaluation is to be done and the average of the two revalued marks is to be awarded to the candidate. However the increase in marks in the two revaluations shall be 4% or above, if the change in marks is to be effected.

(d) If either of the two/both revalued marks vary from the original marks by 20% or above, the fact shall be reported to the standing Committee on Examinations.

(e) If there is a difference of 20% marks or more between the first revaluation and Second revaluation, a third revaluation shall be arranged. Average of the three revaluation marks shall then be awarded to the candidate and the matter shall be reported to the Standing Committee on Examinations.

(f) The examiner who is found guilty of improper valuation/revaluation shall be debarred from examinership for University Examinations for a minimum period of three years. A fine of Rs.500/- shall also be imposed on him/her.

(g) The Controller of Examinations shall maintain a list of teachers against whom action has been taken under these guidelines. Such blacklisted teachers shall not be considered