Gopika.G. v. Director Public Instruction

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/25TH POUSHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 1244 of 2015 (E) --------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------- GOPIKA.G., AGED 17 YEARS, D/O.GOPAKUMAR, VIDYA TUITION CENTRE, KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER & GUARDIAN, GOPAKUMAR E.P., AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.LATE PADMANABHAKURUP, VIDYA TUTION CENTRE, KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD.

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. DIRECTOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

WP(C).No. 1244 of 2015 (E) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1:

TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2013-2014 FOR THE ITEM MOHINIYATTAM (GIRLS).

EXTP2:

TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2013-2014 FOR THE ITEM KUCHIPPUDI (GIRLS).

EXT.P3:

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K2/20000/2014 DATED 26/12/2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

- NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE mbr/

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

----------------------------------- W.P(C). No. 1244 of 2015 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner was a participant in the 'Bharatanatyam' held at the Revenue District School Kalolsavam, Palakkad. According to the petitioner, she secured the first prize in 'Kuchippudi', but only the 2nd place with A Grade in 'Bharatanatyam'. She contends that before her performance in 'Bharatanatyam', some arrangements were made on the stage, which created difficulties and that unprecedented noise from the part of the audience also disturbed her performance. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though she had preferred an appeal, the same was rejected, as borne by Ext.P3, which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.

2.

The learned Government Pleader submits, on instructions that, the 'Stage Manger' did not report any such disturbance. There was no merit in the complaint and the appeal was dismissed by the appellate committee after properly evaluating the merit.

WP(c). No.1244 of 2015 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