Kerala High Court
WP(C)/38707/2010 of RESHMI.M.S Vs THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS on 31 December 2010
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38707 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RESHMI M.S., D/O.SHYLAJA DEVI, THAMARASSERY VEEDU, NEELESWARAM,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH POUSHA 1932
WP(C).No. 38707 of 2010(K)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
---------------
RESHMI M.S., D/O.SHYLAJA DEVI,
THAMARASSERY VEEDU, NEELESWARAM,
KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------
1. THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY,
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, KANNUR-670567.
2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR-670567.
3. THE PRINCIPAL,
PARASSINIKADAVU AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE, PARASSINIKADAVU P.O., KANNUR, PIN-670563.
ADV. SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY FOR R1-R2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 31/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.SURENDRAMOHAN, J.
---------------------------------------
WP (C) No. 38707 of 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2010
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challengingthe inaction on the part of the first respondent in notcompleting the process of revaluation of her answer papersfor which she has applied. The III professional examinationsof B.A.M.S are scheduled commence on 03.01.2011 andtherefore she has prayed for permission to appear for thesaid examinations subject to the result of the revaluation forwhich she has applied for.
2. Advocate M. Saseendran who appears forrespondents 1 and 2 on instructions submits that, therevaluation is complete and that there is no change in themarks awarded to the petitioner in the three papers forwhich she had applied for revaluation. Consequently, thepresent position is that she has failed for the said threepapers, disentitling her from claiming the reliefs that are WP (C) No. 38707 of 2010
2
prayed for in the writ petition.
In view of the above
submission, the writ petition fails and accordingly, dismissed.
rkc
K.SURENDRAMOHAN,
JUDGE.