Roweena v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/18TH POUSHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 34385 of 2014 (W) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
------------- ROWEENA JAMES, AGED 16 YEARS, (MINOR), D/O.JAMES, HIG-20, KASTURBA NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI - 682 020, REP. BY HER MOTHER AND LAWFUL GUARDIAN, MRS.ANITHA, W/O.JAMES, AGED 34 YEARS, HIG-20, KASTURBA NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI -682 020.
BY ADV. SRI.MANU ROY.
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 030.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH GEROGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RVS.
WP(C).No. 34385 of 2014 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
----------------------- EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF G.O DATED 18.10.12.
EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER CUTTING. EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 3.12.2014. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :
----------------------- NIL.
/TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE RVS.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
.............................................................................. W.P.(C)No.34385 OF 2014 ......................................................................... Dated this the 8th January, 2015
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was a participant in the event -Kuchippudi', in the Ernakulam District School Kalolsavam 2014-15 held on 03.12.2014. The petitioner came to be sidelined, when the result was published, as a result of which she is not in a position to participate in the State Level Competition. Even though she filed an appeal, the order in the appeal is about to be passed without any regard to the guidelines issued in respect of conduct of School Kalolsavam, particularly, since the appeal committee has not viewed the video clipping of the performance.
2. The learned Government Pleader, on instruction submits that there is no pith or substance in the contentions raised. There is a difference of '13' marks between the marks obtained by the petitioner (i.e. 260) and the first price winner (i.e. 247). It is stated that the appeal committee had also viewed the video clipping of the performance.
3. After going through the pleadings and proceedings, this Court finds that the petitioner has not established any tenable
W.P.(C)No.34385 OF 2014 ground to call for interference. Accordingly, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk