Priyanka P v. The Director Of Public Instructions
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/26TH POUSHA, 1936 WP(C).NO. 1454 OF 2015 (F) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
-------------------------- PRIYANKA. P., AGED 16, (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER PRADEEP KUMAR. B., RADHANILAYAM, KAROOR P.O., AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.S.RENJITH.
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE PROGRAMME COMMITTEE CONVENER,, KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2014-15, KOZHIKODE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE.
3. THE PROGRAMME COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN, ALAPPUZHA REVENUE DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM 2014-2015, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA.
BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).NO. 1454 OF 2015 (F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1:
COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALAPPUZHA REVENUE DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM 2013-14. EXHIBIT P2:
COPY OF ORDER REJECTING THE APPEAL BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11.01.2015.
EXHIBIT P3:
COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT OF THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY ALAPPUZHA EDITION DATED 10.01.2015.
EXHIBIT P4:
COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED BY THE MANGALAM DAILY DATED 13.01.2015 ALAPPUZHA EDITION.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
======================== W.P.(C). No. 1454 of 2015 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner participated in the event 'Keralanadanam' in the District Level School Kalolsavam and could secure only the fifth place with A Grade. The appeal was rejected by the Appeal Committee as per Ext.P2 order allegedly without considering the contention that the performance was affected by the defective stage and sound system and hence the writ petition.
2. The learned Government Pleader submits on instructions that, there is no pith of substance in the contentions raised. The petitioner could secure 5th place and there is a difference of 14 marks with the 1st prize winner. The allegation, with regard to the defective stage and sound system is wrong. Further, there was no such report from the stage manager.
3. After going through the pleadings and proceedings and the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, this Court finds that the petitioner has not established any tenable ground to call for interference. Accordingly, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
kp/-