Courts should refrain from premature intervention in statutory processes, emphasizing adherence to established timelines for administrative actions.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners are students of a College affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University. The petitioners are aggrieved by the non publication of revaluation results.

2. The petitioners, having failed in certain subjects included in the curriculum of the previous semesters, had applied for revaluation of the same immediately after the results came and within the time stipulated by the University. Exhibits P1, P3, P5, P7, P9 and P11 are the applications for revaluation, all of which are dated between 10.4.2012 and 2.5.2012. The grievance of the petitioners are multi fold, in the sense that the non publication of the results within the specified time would stultify their chances of attending the campus interviews, force them to appear for the very same examinations again and so on and so forth. The petitioners rely on the judgment reported in Nithya v. Cochin University of Science & Technology (2012 (1) KLT 584), wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court laid down broad WP(C).10890/12 guidelines for effecting an expeditious disposal of applications for revaluation and also expressed the Court's dismay at the Universities not having framed appropriate regulations for the said purpose. While hoping that the same would be done, the learned Single Judge also issued a specific direction that in respect of revaluation, the directions issued by the Court shall be strictly complied with and the failure to do so would be at the risk of cost and damages that the Court may deem fit in appropriate cases. In paragraph 7(h), this Court prescribed a period of 45 days from the last date fixed for applying for revaluation; for publication of revaluation results. Learned Standing Counsel for the University fairly submitted that though no appeal has been filed against the judgment, the University has filed a review seeking only more time for publication of the results. In any event, at this point of time, it cannot be disputed that the decision cited supra is binding on all the Universities and the revaluation results are to be published within 45 days from the last date of submitting application for revaluation; failure of which would expose the respondent to the risk of cost and damages.

3. In the instant case, the remittance of fees for revaluation was made between 10.4.2012 and 2.5.2012. The Writ Petition has WP(C).10890/12 been filed on 4.5.2012, long before the prescribed period of 45 days was over. It is to be noticed that this Court, in the judgment cited supra, had raised serious apprehensions and noted with grave concern the geometric proportions in which the number of Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution has increased over the years; when the constitutional remedy is being invoked for anything and everything. The sparing invocation of the constitutional remedy is a principle of the past and the other side of the coin is that any statutory authority now requires a friendly prod from the constitutional courts to properly exercise the statutory power vested in it. This practice was definitely deprecated by this Court in the said judgment and it is depressing to note that still, even after prescribing 45 days period, the students rush to this Court before the said period is over. What was specifically deprecated in the said judgment is now perpetuated that too placing reliance on the said judgment. The concern of delay and the consequences are not for a moment discounted. But, it is time that the petitioners too display some amount of circumspection before approaching this Court and need to be told that a constitutional court would not invoke the powers merely for the asking. Over and above the binding nature of the WP(C).10890/12 judgment, it is to be reiterated that this Court had also laid down in clear terms what failure to comply with the directions would entail.

In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this Writ Petition is premature and only liable to be dismissed. This Court restrains itself from imposing