Sandhra v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/23RD POUSHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 616 of 2015 (B) -------------------------- PETITIONER:
------------------- SANDHRA, AGED 13 (MINOR), D/O.VENUGOPAL, THACHETHU HOUSE, PERUMPILLY P.O., MULANTHURUTHY-682 314, REP.BY HER FATHER AND LAWFUL GUARDIAN VENUGOPAL, AGED 48, S/O.BHASKARA MENON, THACHETHU HOUSE, PERUMPILLY P.O, MULANTHURUTHY-682314.
BY ADV. SRI.MANU ROY RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 030.
3. GOWRI, AGED 13 (MINOR), D/O.AJITH, KURISHUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, THAMPURATTIPARAMBU LANE, BTS ROAD, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682 024.
R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 616 of 2015 (B) ------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
------------------------------------- EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF G.O. DATED 18-10-12 EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER CUTTING DATED 03-12-14. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19-12-14.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
- NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE mbr/
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
----------------------------------- W.P(C). No. 616 of 2015 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2015
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was a participant in the 'Ottanthullal' held at the Ernakulam District School Youth Festival held on 02.12.2014. According to the petitioner, though she performed well, after evaluation she was awarded only 2nd price with A Grade. The petitioner contends that during the performance of the 3rd respondent, her crown slipped and fell down and the Judges and the Stage Manager permitted the 3rd respondent to perform afresh. When the petitioner performed there was a power failure which affected the sound and light in the stage. Hence an appeal was preferred, but the same was dismissed as borne by Ext.P3, without watching the video recording of the performance, which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition. 2.
The learned Government Pleader submits, on instructions that, there was no power failure and there was no defect in the sound system. It is also pointed out that, the 1st price winner obtained 258 marks, while the petitioner obtained
WP(c). No. 616 of 2015 only 245 marks and as such, there is a substantial margin of 13 marks.
3.
Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that there is no tenable ground. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
Pn