Veena S Pillai v. State Of Kerala
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. 1703 of 2015 (K) --------------------------- PETITIONER:
------------------- VEENA S PILLAI, AGED 17 YEARS, D/O.SANTHOSH KUMAR, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER SANTHOSH KUMAR,AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.MURALIDHARAN PILLAI, KARTHIKA, VARANADU, ALAPPUZHA - 688 539.
BY ADVS.SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN SRI.SABU GEORGE RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3. THE CHAIRMAN OF THE APPEAL COMMITTEE / THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT 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:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 1703 of 2015 (K) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
------------------------------------- EXT.P-1:
TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
- NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
.............................................................................. W.P.(C)No.1703 OF 2015 ......................................................................... Dated this the 16th January, 2015
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner had participated in the item-'Nadodi Nrithum' (Folk dance) in the Alappuzha Revenue District Kalolsavam 2014-15. The case of the petitioner is that though she performed well, when the result was published, she was allegedly sidelined, by virtue of which she could not secure the first prize and hence she is not in a position to participate in the State Level competition. Eventhough an appeal was filed mainly pointing out the defective/slippery stage and electricity problem, when she was performing, the same came to be rejected as per Ext.P1 order. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that absolutely no reason is stated in the order, particularly with regard to the various grounds raised in the appeal.
2. The learned Government Pleader, on instruction, submits that there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the plea raised from the part of the petitioner. It is further stated that there was no complaint from any corner with regard to the alleged defects. The stage Manager has not reported any such defect.
W.P.(C)No.1703 OF 2015 It is also stated that there is substantial difference of '15.5' marks between the petitioner and the first prize winner.. This Court does not find any tenable ground to call for interference. The writ petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk