High Court of KeralaWP(C)/1569/2015dismissed

Krishna Deepthi P.S. v. State Of Kerala

2015-01-16Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon3 pages

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. 1569 of 2015 (U) --------------------------- PETITIONER :

-------------------- KRISHNADEEPTHI P.S., D/O.SHEENA SURESH, PANAKKAL HOUSE, NATTIKKA (PO), THRISSUR DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI RESPONDENT(S) :

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

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001

2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION THRIVANANTHAPURAM-695001

3. GENERAL CONVENOR, KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOTHSAVAM 2014-15 STATE LEVEL COMPETITIONS, KOZHIKODE 673 001

4. CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION THRISSUR-3 R1 TO R4 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:

Mn ...2/-

WP(C).No. 1569 of 2015 (U) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1:

TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER BY THE CBSE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION. EXHIBIT P2:

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL --------------------------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

======================== W.P.(C). No. 1569 of 2015 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner participated in the event 'Bharathanatyam' in the District Level School Kalolsavam and could secure only the 6th place with A Grade. The appeal was rejected by the Appeal Committee as per Ext.P2 order allegedly without considering the contentions raised that the judges have given only low marks; whereas the appeal preferred by the 2nd prize winner was allowed 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 1st prize winner got 259 marks; whereas the petitioner could secure only 244 marks, thus there is a difference of 15 marks. The appeal of the 2nd prize winner was allowed on a different ground. The video was viewed and the judges deputed were qualified hands. There is no basis for the allegations.

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/-