K. Vinod Chandran, J.

The petitioners in the above writ petitions, were students under the Calicut University, for the B. Tech graduate course of the 2004 scheme. The petitioners completed the course in 2012, but had not qualified in the regular examinations conducted by the University. Despite the petitioners having not qualified for award of graduate degree, in the normal duration of the course, the petitioners' assert to be "highly academic". The fact remains that they had not qualified in Engineering Mathematics, which gave rise to the instant litigation. Both the petitioners had appeared for the Engineering Mathematics paper in the supplementary examination under the 2004 scheme, in July, 2012. Having failed in the said examination, they appeared before this Court raising allegations against the conduct of the examination as also the fact that certain questions in the question paper were wrong; i.e. not possible of a solution. The petitioners asserted that they had answered the other questions correctly and despite that they had failed in the examination. The petitioners' revaluation also did not yield any result. The petitioners hence challenged the conduct of the examination as being a farce.

2. Very many allegations were raised against the University and the conduct of the examination. The University in both the writ petitions filed identical statements dated 02/04/2013. The specific stand taken was that the scheme of valuation took into account the out-of-syllabus questions and the marks allotted to such questions were distributed among the other questions. The University also produced the revised scheme of valuation brought out by the Chief Examiner. Noticing the discrepancy in the question paper, the original valuation itself was conducted on the revised scheme of valuation and hence the University sought to sustain the original valuation and revaluation and the marks awarded therein to the petitioners.

3. The petitioners then filed a reply alleging that submission of the Standing Counsel for the University on instruction, at the time of admission of the writ petition was that no objection to the question paper was raised and the present contention that the scheme of valuation took into account the out-of-syllabus questions, runs contrary to the earlier plea. Serious allegations were raised as to the sanctity of the statements made across the Bar, on the instruction of the University. Broad allegations were also raised against the University as to its lack of responsibility and transparency and the callous manner in which the students were treated; robbing them of the legitimate employment opportunities in life.

4. Taking all these circumstances into account, which the petitioners had pleaded on affidavit, this Court by interim order dated 11/04/2013 allowed two interlocutory applications filed in each of the writ petitions; having identical prayers. Therein, the petitioners, sought for appointing a qualified mathematician to evaluate their answer sheets on the basis of Ext. R1 scheme of valuation and to submit the valuation report within two weeks. A panel of qualified mathematicians, was also offered in the IA's, which too was of an identical nature.

5. The University in compliance of the order appointed one Nishanth K.V. Thejus Engineering College, Erumapetty, Thrissur, who was shown as the 8th in the panel of qualified mathematicians. The University has then, filed a statement dated 26/09/2013 indicating that the original marks of the petitioners were 25 and, on revaluation by the expert suggested by the petitioners, their marks were reduced to 14.

6. On a reading of the writ petition and the reply affidavit, this Court is of the opinion that callous, irresponsible statements were made by the students against the University without any basis. The failure of the students was sought to be projected as a fault of the University and general allegations were made on the conduct of examinations. On the basis of th