High Court of KeralaWP(C)/35406/2014dismissed

Gopika P v. State Of Kerala

2014-12-30Honourable Mr. Justice Anil K.Narendran5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/9TH POUSHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 35406 of 2014 (A) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

--------------- GOPIKA P., AGED 11 YEARS GEETHANJALI, KALLAI P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 003 REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN AND FATHER, K MOHANDAS. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KOZHIKODE-673 001.

4. THE CONVENOR KOZHIKODE REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KOZHIKODE-673 001.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 35406 of 2014 (A) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------- EXHBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO ONE OF THE PETITIONER'S TEAM MATE IN SANGHA NRUTHAM IN THE KOZHIKODE CHEVAYUR SUB DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM. EXHBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A4/10394/2014(5) DATED 23/12/2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL -------------------------- //True copy// P.A to Judge stu

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of December, 2014

JUDGMENT

The petitioner participated in the item "Sangha Nritham" in the Chevayur Sub District School Kalolsavam. The petitioner secured only 2nd prize with 'A' grade. She filed complaint before the Appeal Committee, which resulted in Ext.P2 order dated 23.12.2014. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approaches this Court by filing the writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, as evident from Ext.P1, the petitioner secured 1st prize with 'A' grade in the state level competition during the previous academic year.

4. The learned Government Pleader, on instruction, would submit that there is a difference of '7' marks between the petitioner and the participant who secured first position in the item 'Sangha Nritham'. The learned Government Pleader would further submit that going by the report submitted by the Stage Manager, there was no technical fault while the petitioner was performing the item.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar.

6. The copy of the memorandum of appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appeal Committee is not on record. The pleading in the writ petition is to the effect that when the petitioner was performing the item 'Sangha Nritham', there was problems with the mike system, which affected her performance. The perusal of Ext.P2 would show that the said contention taken by the petitioner before the Appeal Committee was considered by the said committee with reference to the report of the Stage Manager and found that it is without any basis. It was taking note of the said aspect and also the fact that the petitioner secured much lower marks than the participant who secured 1st prize, the Appeal Committee rejected the appeal by Ext.P2 order.

7. The defects, if any, with regard to the stage was equally applicable to all participants. Further, the petitioner has not chosen to produce before this Court a copy of the memorandum of appeal filed before the Appeal Committee. The petitioner has no specific case of any malafides against either the Judges of the Appeal Committee. When experts in the field have assessed the performance, which is now confirmed in the order passed by the Appeal Committee, this Court will not be justified in interfering

with their decision under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the absence of any vitiating circumstances. In the result, I find absolutely no grounds to interfere with Ext.P2 order passed by the Appeal Committee. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE.

stu