Back
2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 39098
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S. SIRI JAGAN, J
SEETHU CHINNU P.C. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/3858/2010
SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY, SMT.M.M.JASMIN
A student has the right to review answer sheets after failing exams, but cannot challenge results obtained under interim court orders.
Headnote:
Examination - Writ Petition - Procedure of Revaluation - Summary of relevant Acts and sections discussing examination protocols and writ proceedings, including definitions of petitions, examination powers, and rights of students.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Plus Two student, was denied permission to write examinations by the school administration due to doubts about her success. Following interim orders from the court, she took the exams but failed. The petitioner later sought to challenge the legality of her examination results and requested a re-evaluation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could challenge the examination results and seek revaluation despite her failing grades.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the interim decision allowed her to sit for the examination but did not confer rights to challenge the results due to failure.
Final Decision: Petition dismissed; petitioner allowed to review answer sheets.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was a student of the Plus Two course in the
5th respondent School for the academic year 2007-2009. The petitioner was not allowed to write the examination by the 5th respondent, on the premise that if the petitioner is permitted to write the examination they are not sure about her success. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(c)No.6989/09 and as per the interim orders of this court, the petitioner wrote the examination. But in W.A.No.583/09 the Division Bench declined to stay the interim order, but directed that the results shall not be published. Ultimately, by Ext.P9 judgment the Division Bench directed the learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition itself. By Ext.P10 judgment, the learned Single Judge found that in the examination written pursuant to the interim order, the petitioner failed in Physics and Chemistry and therefore there cannot be a W.P.(c)No.3858/10 2 direction to declare the results of the examination undertaken by the petitioner in that judgment. The petitioner was permitted to file a representation and the representation was directed to be disposed of. The petitioner filed Ext.P11 representation. Since no favourable orders were passed, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
“I. To call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P1 examine its legality and propriety and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.
II. To issue a writ of mandamus and direct the 1st respondent to produce all the answer sheet of the petitioner before this honourable court.
III. To issue a writ of mandamus and direct the 2nd respondent to conduct revaluation of all the answer sheet of the petitioner by an independent authority.
IV. To issue a writ of mandamus and direct the 2nd respondent to declare the result of the petitioner”
The learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that the petitioner may be permitted to scrutinize the answer papers for Physics and Chemistry, in which the petitioner has failed. The learned Government Pleader submits that the examination itself was written pursuant to interim orders of this Court and ultimately this court refused to direct the respondents to W.P.(c)No.3858/10 3 declare the results and therefore no scrutiny can be allowed.
Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to permit the petitioner to see the answer papers of Physics and Chemistry without any right in respect thereof on the petitioner.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.3858/10 4 W.P.(c)No.3858/10 5
