M. G. University v. Millu Dandapani — 1999 DIGILAW 674 (KER)

Judgment :- A.R. Lakshmanan, J. By consent of both parties, both the appeal and the Original Petition were taken up together for final hearing. 2. The Writ Appeal is filed by the Mahatma Gandhi University and the Controller of Examinations against one Millu Dandapani, 5th Year LL.B. student, Government Law College, Ernakulam, who filed the Original Petition. The appeal was filed against the order dated 11.10.1999 in C.M.P. 29673/1999. 3. The Original Petition was filed by the first respondent in the appeal for a mandamus to permit the petitioner to appear for the 5th Year LL.B. Final Examination scheduled to be commenced on 30.6.1999 or any date thereafter and for a further direction to produce the answer papers of the first respondent-Writ petitioner bearing Register Number 395 of Part I of 3rd Year LL.B. Examinations held in March, 1999 for perusal of this Court. 4. The case of the first respondent-writ petitioner, in short, is that he has completed the Course and due to write his Final Year Examinations scheduled to be commenced on 30.6.1999, that he has passed the 1st Year, 2nd Year and 4th Year in full and that he has passed Part 11 of the 3rd Year at the relevant time. However, he could not appear for Part 1 Examination due to the fact that he was sick and fell ill. Therefore, he appeared for the Part 1 of the 3rd Year Examination on 26th, 29th, 30th and 31st of March, 1999, conducted by the University. As per Ext.Pl, no candidate will be permitted to attend the 5th year LL.B. Course unless he has put in the required attendance for the 4th Year LL.B. Course and registers as a candidate for 4th Year LL.B. Examination. No candidate shall be admitted to the 5th Year LL.B. Examination, unless he has undergone a Course of the study in the subjects prescribed for the examination for a period of one Academic Year in an Institution maintained by or affiliated to the University and he has put in the required attendance for the 5th year LL.B. Course and satisfy the prescribed Rules relating to conduct and progress. According to the first respondent-writ petitioner, there is no stipulation or condition that a candidate should pass in any year to appear in the next year's examination, but he should have registered in the earlier years and that he got admission in the Law College, Ernakulam for the 5 Year LL.B. Course as per Ext. P1 Regulation and Scheme published by the University, after qualifying in the Entrance Examination. He wrote the Examination of Part I of the 3rd Year LL.B. and has been awaiting the results. The Controller of Examinations published the results on 24.6.1999. But, however, when the results were published in the office of the Law College, it was found that his Register Number 395 was scored off. It is the case of the petitioner that a perusal of Ext.P2 it can be seen that the said Register Number has found a place earlier, but has been scored off by some one. In the meantime the 5th Year LL.B. Examination was to commence on 30.6.1999. However, the University authorities are maintaining a stand that unless a student completes and passes the 3rd Year LL.B. and is eligible for B. A. (in Law) Degree, he will not be permitted to appear for the 5th Year Examination. According to the writ petitioner, Ext. P2 as seen, is dated 24.6.1999 and it was published in the College premises on 25.6.1999 at 2.30 P.M. and 26th and 27th were holidays and, therefore, the University Office was not functioning and hence the first respondent-writ petitioner can pursue his remedies only on 28th of June, 1999 at the earliest. In the above circumstances, he filed the Original Petition for the prayers above referred to. It is the contention of the first respondent-writ petitioner that the stand taken by the University that the first respondent would be permitted to appear for the Final Year Examination only if he passes the 3rd Year papers is totally arbitrary and illegal and vitiated by total non-application of mind, which is also in flagrant violation of Ext. PI Regulation, which is totally silent about such condition. 5. Along with the Original Petition, the writ petitioner filed Exhibit P1, the University Regulations, and Exhibit P2, which is the provisional list or Register Numbers of successful candidates in the 3rd Year LL.B. Degree (5 Year) Examination, April, 1999. 6. The Original Petition was admitted on 28.6.1999 by this Court. PI Regulation, which is totally silent about such condition. 5. Along with the Original Petition, the writ petitioner filed Exhibit P1, the University Regulations, and Exhibit P2, which is the provisional list or Register Numbers of successful candidates in the 3rd Year LL.B. Degree (5 Year) Examination, April, 1999. 6. The Original Petition was admitted on 28.6.1999 by this Court. On 28.6.1999, a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.M.P.25912/1999 directed the University to register the first respondent-writ petitioner's name for the 5th Year LL.B. Examination by accepting his Application and Examination Fee, issue Hall Ticket and permit him to appear for the Examinations scheduled from 30.6.1999 onwards. Though such an interim direction was granted, it was ordered that the said order would be provisional and subject to the result of the Original Petition. 7. In C.M.P.29673/1999, the writ petitioner requested the Controller of Examinations of the University to complete the re-valuation of the Part I papers of the writ petitioner of the 3rd Year LL.B. Course and intimate the result to him. A learned Single Judge of this Court on 21.7.1999 directed the Controller of Examinations to complete the re-valuation of the Part I papers of the 3rd Year LL.B. Course of the writ petitioner and intimate the result of the examination before the results of the Final Year Examination are published. Along with the above C.M.P. Exhibit P4, viz., the application for re-valuation submitted by the writ petitioner, was enclosed. 8. Along with C.M.P.37397/1999, the writ petitioner filed Exhibit P5, which is the photo copy of the Memo dated 17.8.1999 issued by the Deputy Registrar (Examinations) to the writ petitioner. Under the said Exhibit, the writ petitioner was informed that his answer books in Constitutional Law-I, Political science-ill, jurisprudence and Law of Torts have been valued and the original marks awarded will stand since the change in marks on re-valuation is found to be less than 5 % of the maximum marks for the concerned papers and that if he desires, he can identify his papers on 30.8.1999. 9. As stated earlier, the writ petitioner filed C.M.P. 37397/1999 to direct the Controller of Examinations to produce before this Court the results of the revaluation of the papers. On 14.9.1999, the University was directed to file a statement showing the actual revaluation marks obtained by the writ petitioner and the original marks. 9. As stated earlier, the writ petitioner filed C.M.P. 37397/1999 to direct the Controller of Examinations to produce before this Court the results of the revaluation of the papers. On 14.9.1999, the University was directed to file a statement showing the actual revaluation marks obtained by the writ petitioner and the original marks. It is seen from the order dated 28.9.1999 that the Standing Counsel had produced the mark-list showing that in all subjects on re-valuation the writ petitioner received lesser marks and the mark-list on re-valuation was returned to the Standing Counsel after perusal. 10. On 11.10.1999, Koshy, J. passed an order in C.M.P.29673/1999 directing the University to re-value the papers by a qualified third examiner and inform the result to this Court after re-valuation. Aggrieved by the said order, the University has filed the present appeal. 11. Mr. K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, learned counsel for the appellants/ university submitted that since the first respondent-writ petitioner did not secure the required minimum, he failed in the Examination, that as per the Regulations, without securing a pass in the 3rd Year examination, a candidate is not permitted to appear for the 5 Year Examination and that the first respondent had applied for a scrutiny of all the answer papers and thereafter he applied for re-valuation of the answer papers. Pursuant to the direction, he was permitted to appear for the 5th Year Examination and by Memo dated 17.8.1999 he was informed that the change in marks on revaluation is found to be less than 5 % of the maximum marks and according to the Rules, the original marks awarded will stand and as directed, the marks awarded on re-valuation was also furnished before the learned Single Judge and thereafter the direction sought for by the first respondent to value the answer scripts by a third valuer was allowed. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned judge has failed to consider the fact that the Rules and Regulations of the University do not permit valuation of the answer script by a third examiner and the learned judge has also not noticed that only if there is an increase in marks by 10% or above of the maximum marks, a second re-valuation will be allowed. It is also alleged that the learned Single Judge did not consider the Rule regarding revaluation, which provides that if difference between the marks awarded in the original valuation and the re-valuation is less than 10% of the maximum marks it is not permissible to value the answer script by a third valuer. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge misconstrued the scope of the rule and directed re-valuation of the answer scripts and that the valuation of the answer scripts by a third valuer is done only if the marks awarded on re-valuation is more than 10% of the marks awarded in the original valuation. It is also submitted that the first respondent-writ petitioner has no right to seek re-valuation against the rules of the University. 12. On 22.11.1999, this Bench passed the following order: "The learned Single Judge after going through the papers felt that the four papers written by the appellant/ petitioner have to be revalued by a qualified third examiner. The University has filed this Writ Appeal against the said order in C.M.P. No.29673/1999. We have gone through the answer papers and we also feel that all the four papers have to be revalued. We, therefore, requested Mr. S.V.S. Iyer, Senior Advocate, to revalue the papers and submit a report to this Court. Learned Senior Advocate has also accepted our request and to revalue the papers. The Court Officer is directed to give the entire set of papers in the Writ Appeal, Original Petition and also the answer books in a sealed cover. Counsel for the University is directed to furnish all the relevant question papers to the learned Senior Advocate. Further orders will follow after the revaluation is made. Post on 29.11.1999." Pursuant to our above order, all the papers were furnished to the learned Senior Advocate. 13. Learned Senior Advocate submitted a report. The report reads thus: "(1) I have been directed by this Hon'ble Court to value four answer papers of Third Year LL.B (Supplementary) Degree Examinations March/April 1999 (Five Year scheme). The four papers are relating to: (1) Paper I Indian Constitutional Law I (2) Paper II Political Science III (3) Paper III Jurisprudence (4) Paper IV The Law of Torts. (2) The answer paper of Paper I - Indian Constitutional Law I bears the number 2705 h, at the right hand top. The four papers are relating to: (1) Paper I Indian Constitutional Law I (2) Paper II Political Science III (3) Paper III Jurisprudence (4) Paper IV The Law of Torts. (2) The answer paper of Paper I - Indian Constitutional Law I bears the number 2705 h, at the right hand top. The answer paper of Paper II Political Science III bears the No. 2706 at the right hand top. The answer paper of Paper III - Jurisprudence bears the number 2707 at the right hand top. The answer paper of Paper IV The Law of Torts bear the No. 2708 at the right hand top. (3) The question papers along with the syllabus on these subjects were handed over to me by the Standing Counsel for the Mahatma Gandhi University. (4) The Court Officer has given the entire set of papers in the Writ Appeal, Original Petition and also the answer books in a sealed cover. (5) I have revalued all the answer papery. I have given hereunder the marks awarded by me in respect of the questions answered by the student in relation to the four answer papers. (6) In tabulating the marks I have followed the order in which the questions are answered in the answer papers. Incidentally I mention that in the answer book on Indian Constitutional Law answer to question 1(b) is numbered as II B. 9. Along with the report, I am submitting the entire set of papers in the Writ Appeal, Original Petition and the answer books in the order in which they were given". 14. On November 30,1999, this Bench passed the following order: - "Pursuant to our request Sri. S. Venkitasubramonia Ayyar, Senior Advocate submitted a report after revaluation. The report is taken on file. We place on record our sincere appreciation for the service rendered by the learned senior advocate. It is represented that pending the Original Petition, the student was permitted to appear for the 5th Year LL.B. Examination. The learned counsel for the University states that the valuation has already been done for all the students. We, therefore, direct the University to produce the mark sheets of the petitioner in the original petition in a sealed cover for our perusal and for further orders. The University is also permitted to file an additional affidavit on the report submitted by the senior advocate. We, therefore, direct the University to produce the mark sheets of the petitioner in the original petition in a sealed cover for our perusal and for further orders. The University is also permitted to file an additional affidavit on the report submitted by the senior advocate. Counsel for the University may also ascertain from the University in regard to the marks awarded by way of moderation for all students this year." As directed in the above order, the learned counsel appearing for the University has also produced the mark sheets of the first respondent-writ petitioner in a sealed cover for our perusal and for further orders. 15. Pursuant to our request, Dr. N. Ramachandran, Controller of Examinations by his letter dated 4.12.1999 addressed to Sri. K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, Standing Counsel for the University, submitted the details about the marks secured by the first respondent-writ petitioner in Part I of the 3rd Year Examination (5 Year Course) conducted in May, 1999. The letter reads as follows: "As directed by the Hon. High Court of Kerala in W.A. No. 2476/99 against the order in CMP No. 29673/99 in O.P. No. 15912/99 filed by Shri. Millu Dandapani, the details asked for are submitted herewith. The pass board meeting of III LL.B (5 Year) Exam., May'99, held at Govt. Law College, EKM. resolved to give 8 marks as moderation for getting a pass or a higher class or to the best advantage of the candidate. The meeting was held on 23.6.99. The original marks secured by the candidate and after valuation by Sri. SVS Iyer are as follows: 16. Dr. N. Ramachandran, Controller of Examinations, has also, by a separate letter dated 4.12.1999 furnished the 5th year examination with Registration No. 65053, which he was permitted to appear provisionally. The marks secured by him are as follows: 17. The learned counsel for the University submitted that the student has obtained pass marks in the 5th Year Examination. However, as permitted by our order dated 30.11.1999, the second appellant has filed a detailed affidavit by way of answer to the allegations mentioned in the Original Petition. Mr. The marks secured by him are as follows: 17. The learned counsel for the University submitted that the student has obtained pass marks in the 5th Year Examination. However, as permitted by our order dated 30.11.1999, the second appellant has filed a detailed affidavit by way of answer to the allegations mentioned in the Original Petition. Mr. Kurup submitted that the first respondent appeared for the Part I of the 3rd Year LL.B. Examination in May, 1997 and secured only 146 marks out of 400 and for Part II, he secured 136 out of 400 and that he did not appear for examination in December 1997 and June 1998 for Part I. He appeared for the 3rd Year Part II examination in December 1997 and got only 190 out of 400 and again he appeared for Part II in June, 1998 and secured a pass by getting 235 marks out of 400 and in May, 1999 he appeared for Part I of the 3rd Year LL.B. Examination and got only 190 marks and failed in the examination since the marks were not sufficient to secure a pass in the examination. He reiterated his contentions raised in the writ appeal. He submitted that according to the Regulations, a student will be permitted to complete the 5th Year LL.B. irrespective of passing the previous examination. But, a candidate can register for 5th year LL.B. Examination only if he is eligible to get B.A. (in Law) Degree, i.e. 3rd Year LL.B. Examination and the said Regulation was introduced as early as on 24.9.1992 and, therefore, the first respondent is bound by the said Regulation. He would also submit that the Calendar, Ext. PI, issued by the College is not binding on the University and from 1992 onwards no student was permitted to appear for the 5th Year Examination without passing the 3rd Year Examination. He would further submit that this Court while admitting the Writ Appeal directed the University to produce the answer scripts and subsequently Sri. S.V.S. Iyer, Senior Advocate, was requested to value the answer scripts and to submit a report and accordingly, the learned Senior Advocate filed a report. It is submitted that the marks awarded by Sri. He would further submit that this Court while admitting the Writ Appeal directed the University to produce the answer scripts and subsequently Sri. S.V.S. Iyer, Senior Advocate, was requested to value the answer scripts and to submit a report and accordingly, the learned Senior Advocate filed a report. It is submitted that the marks awarded by Sri. S.V.S. Iyer would also indicate that the answer scripts of the first respondent-writ petitioner was originally valued properly and from the report it can be seen that the difference in marks from the original valuation is only below 10% of the maximum marks and such variation in awarding of marks will always be there. 18. Elaborating his submission, Mr. Kurup submitted that according to the Regulations the original marks secured by the candidate will not change in certain circumstances and if the marks awarded on re-valuation are less than the original marks, there will be no change in the original marks and if a candidate gets marks higher than that of the original valuation, there will be no change in the original marks if the difference is less than 5 % of the maximum marks. If the change in mark on re-valuation is 5 % or above but below 10% of the maximum mark, the marks obtained on re-valuation will be given as final marks. A second re-valuation will be conducted only if the marks on first re-valuation is higher than 10% of the maximum marks. He submitted that in the case of the first respondent, the marks awarded on first re-valuation were less than the original marks and, therefore, a second re-valuation is not permissible under the University Rules. It is also submitted that the report submitted by Sri. S.V.S. Iyer should be considered only in the light of the above Regulation and, therefore, he submitted that the report may be accepted only for the limited purpose of the satisfaction of this Court regarding the genuineness of the complaint raised by the first respondent-writ petitioner in respect of the original valuation. He, therefore, prayed that the said marks may not be substituted in the place of the marks awarded in the original valuation. He also invited out attention to the University Ordiance which provides for the appointment of examiners and the qualification, terms of appointment, etc., which are applicable to the University, and marked as Exhibit R1(b). He, therefore, prayed that the said marks may not be substituted in the place of the marks awarded in the original valuation. He also invited out attention to the University Ordiance which provides for the appointment of examiners and the qualification, terms of appointment, etc., which are applicable to the University, and marked as Exhibit R1(b). He also furnished the qualifications and experience of the Examiners. In view of the affidavit now filed on 10.12.1999, Mr. Kurup submitted that the first respondent has no right to seek for a second revaluation of the answer scripts against the Rules and the Regulations of the University and the circumstances would only show that there was no irregularity in the original valuation and the re-valuation done by the examiners and the marks awarded by the valuer appointed by this Court is also not shockingly disproportionate to that of the marks awarded by the original valuer. Hence, he submitted that the first respondent-writ petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in the Original Petition and the appeal filed by the University against the interim order is liable to be allowed. Along with the affidavit, he also filed Exhibits R1(a). and R1(b). 19. We are of the opinion that though there may be substance in the argument advanced by Mr. Gopalakrishna Kurup, the said argument cannot be accepted in view of the procedure adopted by the learned Single, Judge and by us and the production of the answer scripts and the valuation of the same by a Senior Advocate at the instance of the Court. Therefore, the case on hand has to be viewed and decided in the light of the orders passed by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge would show that the learned Single Judge has himself verified the papers and on going through the answer sheets etc., the learned judge was satisfied that it should be valued by a third examiner. The learned judge in fact said in his order that in the facts and circumstances of the case, without creating a precedent direct the University to get the papers valued by a qualified third examiner and after valuation inform the result to this Court within a month. 20. The learned judge in fact said in his order that in the facts and circumstances of the case, without creating a precedent direct the University to get the papers valued by a qualified third examiner and after valuation inform the result to this Court within a month. 20. In the Writ Appeal, this Bench has passed two orders, on 22.11.1999 and 30.11.1999. On going through the answer scripts, we also felt that all the four papers have to be re-valued and, accordingly, we requested Sri. S. V.S. Iyer, Senior Advocate to re-value the papers and submit a report and as directed, the learned counsel for the University has also submitted the answer books in a sealed cover and also furnished all the relevant question papers, etc. to the learned Senior Advocate for the purpose of re-valuation. The report of the Senior Advocate, which is extracted supra, would clearly go to show that the learned Senior Advocate has taken meticulous care to re-value the papers and has awarded the following marks for the four papers Paper I Indian Constitutional Law I 42/100 Paper II Political Science III 54/100 Paper III Jurisprudence 52/100 Paper IV The Law of Torts 521/2100" whereas, the first respondent who appeared for the Part I of the 3rd Year LL.B. Examination has secured the following marks: - "Constitutional Law 33/100 Political Science III 55/100 Jurisprudence 52/100 Law of Torts 50/100 Total 190/400 Thus, it is seen that the first respondent has secured 101/2 marks over and above the marks secured by him in Part I of the 3rd Year LL.B. Examination conducted in April, 1999. 21. After seeing the report submitted by the learned Senior Advocate, this Bench felt that the marks obtained by the student in the 5th Year Examination can also be verified by the Bench to see whether the student has passed the 5th Year LL.B Examination. Accordingly, in a sealed cover it was produced before us and it is seen from the marks, the student has obtained pass marks in the 5th Year Examination. 22. It is also pertinent to note that when the answer papers were given for valuation by the Senior Advocate Mr. Accordingly, in a sealed cover it was produced before us and it is seen from the marks, the student has obtained pass marks in the 5th Year Examination. 22. It is also pertinent to note that when the answer papers were given for valuation by the Senior Advocate Mr. S.V.S. Iyer, the marks awarded by the Examiners in March-April, 1999 and the marks obtained by the student on re-valuation in all the four papers were detached and only the answer sheets alone were given to the Senior Advocate. It is thus seen that the Senior Advocate has no knowledge about the marks secured by the student in the examination conducted earlier and the marks awarded to him on re-valuation. This Bench has adopted this procedure in order to satisfy ourselves as to whether the student has answered the papers well and if so, his future career should not be spoiled on technicalities. In fact, the learned Senior Advocate was furnished the question papers along with the syllabus on these subjects and the entire set of papers in the Original Petition and the Writ Appeal and also the answer books in a sealed cover. The Senior Advocate has re-valued all the answer papers and has given the marks awarded by him in respect of the questions answered by the student in relation to the four answer papers. The Senior Advocate has also followed the order in which the questions were answered in the answer papers while tabulating the marks. 23. Mr. Kelu Nambiar, Senior Advocate in reply to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that it does not look appropriate for the University to ignore what actually transpired during the hearing of the case and the re-valuation by the learned Senior Advocate. As pointed out by him, the re-valuation by the learned Senior Advocate was done of course pursuant to the directions of this Court, for which the University also was a consenting party. In the light of the events that happened in this Court, it does not now lie in the mouth of the University to say that a second re-valuation is not permissible under the University Rules and that the marks may not be substituted in the place of the marks awarded in the original valuation. In the light of the events that happened in this Court, it does not now lie in the mouth of the University to say that a second re-valuation is not permissible under the University Rules and that the marks may not be substituted in the place of the marks awarded in the original valuation. It is also suggested that the present revaluation conducted by the learned Senior Advocate cannot be compared to the valuation/re-valuation done by qualified teachers, whose particulars are given in the affidavit. In this context, it is pointed out by the learned Senior Advocate for the first respondent that under Clause-8 of Exhibit R1(b) Ordinance, members of the Bar are also eligible to be appointed as Examiners. The student being a Law student, we thought that a valuation by a Senior Advocate would be more appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case and, therefore, we entrusted the papers to the Senior Advocate. If the argument of the learned counsel for the University is now accepted at this stage, it would have the effect of rendering the genuine steps taken, procedure followed and orders issued in the presence of both the parties in Court an exercise in futility and making the result of such actions a nullity. We are, therefore, not in a position to countenance the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the University. In our opinion, the University cannot project a picture different from what actually took place and happened in this Court. 24. We shall now advert to the decisions cited by Mr. Gopalakrishna Kurup. He cited the decision in B. Rajappa v. Addl. Controller of Examination, Madras University, AIR 1989 Madras 242. In that case, the student, who is the appellant before the Bench, prayed for a certiorarified mandamus to quash the memorandum issued by the Additional Controller of Examinations dated 6.3.1980 and to direct the Additional Controller of Examinations to arrange for a re-valuation, by objective and dispassionate examiners, of his answer papers in B.Arch (Final) Examination, 1979, etc. S. Padmanabhan, J., who heard the writ petition, countenanced the prayer of the appellant with reference to revaluation of answer papers. However, the learned Single Judge, on a construction of the Rules governing re-valuation, did not countenance the prayer for re-valuation of answer papers in Town Planning. S. Padmanabhan, J., who heard the writ petition, countenanced the prayer of the appellant with reference to revaluation of answer papers. However, the learned Single Judge, on a construction of the Rules governing re-valuation, did not countenance the prayer for re-valuation of answer papers in Town Planning. Aggrieved by the above order of the learned Single Judge, the student preferred the Writ Appeal. It was argued before the Bench that it is not possible to travel beyond the rules and bring in a mode of revaluation and that the rules of revaluation did not contemplate comparison with the answer papers on any other successful candidate. In that case, the rules provided for re-valuation. The Bench said that the student cannot be allowed to travel beyond them and suggest a mode, which according to him is a reasonable and a fair one and once this approach is countenanced, it is not possible to draw any line any where, and suggestions after suggestions on the concept of proper, fair and reasonable method of revaluation are likely to be placed before Courts and Courts would be obliged to substitute and support their views on the methodology of revaluation and that is a field better left to the professional acumen of personnel, possessing technical expertise and wide experience on those aspects and courts would do well not to superimpose their views and to restrain themselves from doing it. They were not persuaded to interfere in the Writ Appeal. 25. The learned counsel for the University has also cited another decision in University of Kerala v. Alex Saji,1997 (2) KLT 100, which held that the guideline is neither arbitrary or discriminatory and if the decision is within the confines of reasonableness, it is no part of the court's function to look further into its merits. 26. Another judgment of a Division Bench reported in Viswanathan, M.K. v. Controller of Examinations, University of Calicut, AIR 1999 Kerala 318 was also cited. In that case, the Original Petition was filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to complete the revaluation of the answer papers for the M.A. (English) previous and final examinations conducted by the School of Distance Education and to publish the results. In that case, the Original Petition was filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to complete the revaluation of the answer papers for the M.A. (English) previous and final examinations conducted by the School of Distance Education and to publish the results. The Original Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the First Ordinance of the University provides that there is no revaluation of the answer paper because of the double valuation provided for the Post Graduate degree. In the Writ Appeal, it was argued by the appellant that the University has made provisions and prescribed procedure for the revaluation of the answer papers for the examination conducted by the School of Distance Education and that the appellant had duly applied for revaluation and had complied with the necessary requirements and, therefore, in the circumstances the authorities are duty bound to complete the revaluation without delay. The Bench held that the appellant has appeared for M.A. (English) course and no revaluation is provided in terms of the Ordinance and the Instructions, which was relied on by the appellant, are general in nature. Therefore, the Bench held that the appellant-petitioner was not entitled for the reliefs sought for in the Writ Appeal. 27. We are of the opinion that wherever a genuine plea is raised it is always open to the Court to accept the said plea and adopt a fair and reasonable course in the facts and circumstances of the case. That is, where the discretionary exercise of the Court is called for, nothing precludes the Court from exercising such discretionary power in a case like the present one. When the Courts are satisfied prima facie that the matter requires to be looked into, it is our duty to satisfy ourselves about it in the best manner possible. We should say that we have perused the papers and felt that a further revaluation was necessary with the assistance of an Examiner appointed by this Court or academicians of merit in the respective subjects. In the instant case, all the papers relate to the Law subjects. We, therefore ventured to request the learned Senior Advocate for revaluation to have a fresh look at the papers and value the same. By this revaluation, it has not come to light that the student has secured pass marks in the examinations in question. In the instant case, all the papers relate to the Law subjects. We, therefore ventured to request the learned Senior Advocate for revaluation to have a fresh look at the papers and value the same. By this revaluation, it has not come to light that the student has secured pass marks in the examinations in question. It is also not in dispute now, as seen from the sealed cover now produced with reference to the 5th Year examination, that the student has also obtained pass marks. But for our intervention it would not have come to light that the student has now secured pass marks. We feel that this Court has exercised its power and jurisdiction under Art.226 in the interest of the first respondent and to satisfy ourselves that fairness in action would always produce fruitful results. So long as it is the duty of the Court to protect the interest of a citizen, the Court cannot decline to exercise its jurisdiction in the interest of justice. It is wrong to think that the Court is prohibited from perusing the answer papers and ordering re-valuation by a Senior lawyer. All procedure is always open to a Court which is not expressly prohibited and no rule of the Court has laid down that the Courts shall not peruse papers and order revaluation if the Court requires it in warranting circumstances. This Court has power to mould the relief to suit the requirements. For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the Writ Appeal and allow the Original Petition, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and direct the University to declare the results of the four papers of Part I of the 3rd Year LL.B. Examination of the first respondent-writ petitioner pursuant to the revaluation of the said papers by the Senior Advocate Sri. S. V.S. Iyer and intimate the result to the first respondent-writ petitioner and further to declare the results of the 5th Year LL.B. Examination with Register No. 65053 on the basis of the marks secured by the writ petitioner and submitted to this Court by the Controller of Examinations by his letter dated 4.12.1999.