On the basis of revaluation of answer books petitioner declared to have been passed.

1. The prayer is for a mandamus to the respondents herein to produce the answer paper 6L.C. “Instrumentation system” with Registration No.8707336 of April, 2000 Examination of Engineering Course for verification as to whether all the answers were valued and correctly totalled and order evaluation of unvalued answers and award marks.

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

The petitioner is a student of Electrical and Electronics Engineering (EEE) in Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering, having joined the course in the year 1997. He has been rated as one of the best students in the College. He has secured 83.8% in the first year, 87% in the III semester, 80.75% in the IV semester and 83% in the V semester. In the VI semester, he wrote six papers and he wrote them well. But when he received the mark-sheet, he found to his shock that he had been awarded only 30% marks in Instrumentation System. He had answered all the questions and the answers which he had given in the answer book would entitle him to secure more than 80%. He approached the College Authority through his father and sought an audience with the Principal. He also gave an application for rescrutiny. The Principal of the College was also surprised of the marks given to the petitioner in the said subject. He went to the extent of making an endorsement in the application given on his behalf on 12.7.2000 seeking revaluation on the following lines:

“Submitted to the Controller of Examination, Sir, Mr.Sudarshan Kumars academic record is brilliant and first in the College so far. Hence, he may be first in the University also. There seems to be a clerical/data entry error.I request you to give your personal attention so that an excellent student does not lose faith in our Educational system.”

He made a further endorsement in the application for revaluation/retotalling as “Strongly Recommended.”

3. The petitioner was one of the few candidates selected in the campus interview held by I Nautix Technologies India Private Limited. His appointment being a conditional one, that the offer was revocable if all the subjects had not been cleared in the first attempt. Either the valuation of the paper does not refer to the answer book of the petitioner or an omission to value certain answers and in this case, a mistake could not be a mere mistake in totalling. The very system of evaluation and rechecking required to be reconsidered for the purpose of ensuring justice and fair play as otherwise students similarly placed like the petitioner would be left with no other effective way of redressal of their grievance. In the TOEFL examination, the petitioner has secured 647 out of 677 marks and in G.R.E. examination, he has secured 2260 out of 2400. The marks in Instrumentation System in the VI semester would be an obstacle for the petitioner to take further studies abroad. Indeed, there is no provision for revaluating the answer papers as per the Regulations. However, if there had been no assessment, a direction could be issued after calling for rescrutiny. In W.P.No.8835 of 1996, this court found that the answers given for some questions had not been valued and a direction was issued to award marks for the said answers also. Similarly in W.P.No.10321 of 1998, similar directions were issued. The petitioner has applied for the examination to be held in October, 2000 and he has also paid the necessary fees. But his passing in the subsequent examination will not delete the records that he had failed once. It is under these circumstances that the writ petition came to be filed.

4. P.D.Dinakaran, J. ordered notice of motion returnable in one week on 29.8.2000 Mr.B.Ramamoorthy, learned standing counsel for the University entered appearance on behalf of the respondents. On perusal of the allegations in the affidavit as also the academic record of the petitioner found in the typed set of papers, I was satisfied that the petitioner had been more than an average student, his, per