The main legal point established in the judgment is that revaluation regulations must be reasonable and not arbitrary, and must be backed by reasonability and basis.

JUDGMENT :

The challenge in the present writ petition is to the amended clause 14.2 Regulation of the Mahatma Gandhi University, notified by notification dated 25.1.2017 pertaining to revaluation of result of the candidates who are not able to obtain sufficient marks. The writ petitioner is undergoing LLB course (3 year) at Government Law College, Ernakulam and is now in the 4th semester of the said course. According to the petitioner, she fared well in the 1st Semester Examination held in May 2018 and expecting good marks in all the papers. The result was published in January, 2019, she received the copy of the mark list late due to delay in finalising the migration process as she had studied degree course under the Calicut University.

2. Except in the paper 'Legal Language' petitioner got high marks. In the written examination of 'Legal Language' the petitioner could secure only 38 marks out of 80. According to the petitioner she obtained good marks in the 2nd and 3rd Semester examinations and had obtained a total of 67.5% and 70.5% marks respectively, therefore, submitted application for revaluation of the paper “Legal Language”. Vide communication dated 24.8.2019, the 2nd respondent intimated the petitioner that her answer book in the subject “Legal Language” has been revalued and that the original marks awarded would stand. On a reply to Ext.P2 application, it was intimated to the petitioner that she had secured 53 out of 80 marks in the 1st revaluation and 33 out of 80 marks in the 2nd revaluation. It was also intimated that as per Regulations, if the increase in marks on the first revaluation is greater than or equal to 15% of the maximum marks of the paper, a second revaluation shall be conducted. After the second revaluation, the average of the nearest two marks from the three valuations, ie. the original valuation, first revaluation and second revaluation shall be awarded. If the marks after the first revaluation or the average after second revaluation happens to be less than the original marks, the original score will stand.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that 15% of 80 comes to 12 marks. The petitioner in the subject 'Legal Language' secured 38 marks. However, on revaluation she obtained 53. Since the margin is more than 12 it has gone for second revaluation and the marks were reduced to 33. However, if the candidate had secured only the margin of 11, he/she would have been given the benefit and secure high marks.

4. Even otherwise, there can be variation with regard to the approach and comprehension of the examiner, in case the paper is sent for two revaluations. Therefore, Ext.P5 regulation is unreasonable and arbitrary. Once the student obtained high marks the same should be treated as final instead of undergoing a second revaluation. The Regulation in force cannot stand the test of reasonability and arbitrariness. In support of the aforementioned contention, petitioner relies upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput and Another V. Gulbarga University [2013 KHC 4875) to contend that even when two views are possible and the expert body has taken a view, the same deserves acceptance and the court cannot substitute its own view by sitting in appeal, but it cannot be treated as an absolute rule as absolute power corrupts absolutely.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this court to the amended regulation by saying that such regulation lacks any reasoning for sending for second revaluation.

6. In the statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that as per clauses 14.2 & 14.4 of the Revaluation Regulation dated 25.1.2017 if the increase in Marks/WGP on the first revaluation is greater than or equal to 15% of the maximum Marks/WGP of the Paper/Course, a second revaluation shall be conducted. After the second revaluati