Aravindan v. The Kerala State School Kalolsavam Kozhikode, Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/22ND POUSHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 1030 of 2015 (C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

-------------------------- ARAVINDAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN P.K., 'NIRANJANAM', DHARMADOM POST, KANNUR DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH RESPONDENT(S) :

----------------------------

1. THE GENERAL COORDINATOR, {DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION}, KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM, PROGRAM COMMITTEE, KOZHIKODE, PIN- 673 001.

2. THE GENERAL CONVENER, {ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION}, KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM, PROGRAM COMMITTEE, KOZHIKODE, PIN- 673 001.

3. THE CHAIRMAN, PROGRAME COMMITTEE, KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN- 673 001.

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OFFICE, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN- 673 001.

5. THE APPEAL COMMITTEE OF THE KANNUR REVENUE DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE OF THE KANNUR REVENUE DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM, PIN - 670 001.

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Msd.

WP(C).No. 1030 of 2015 (C) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT-P1:

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPEAL AUTHORITY NO. E-3/12418/2014 DATED 08/01/2005 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C) No. 1030 of 2015 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 12th day of January, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner's school team was a participant in 'Nadanpattu' competition held recently in the Kannur Revenue District School Kalolsavam. According to the petitioner, though the petitioner's team performed well, after evaluation they were awarded only A Grade with 2nd place, which according to the petitioner is not correct and hence an appeal was preferred, contending that the programme was started much belatedly. But the appeal was dismissed, as borne by Ext. P1, which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that there is absolutely no pith or substance in the averments raised in the writ petition. It is pointed out that the first prize winner got 261 marks, whereas the petitioner could secure only 238 marks and that the contention with regard to belated starting of the programme was equally applicable to the all the participants, which in fact was

W.P.(C) No. 1030 of 2015 : 2 :

not due to the fault of the organizers, but due to various other reasons, including the increase in number of the 'appeal entrants'.

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) kmd