Kerala High Court
WP(C)/41515/2016 of NEHA MATHEW Vs DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS on 30 December 2016
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/9TH POUSHA, 1938 WP(C).No. 41515 of 2016 (L) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------- NEHA MATHEW D/O.DAYSAMMA MATHEW, AGED 16 YEARS, MINOR, KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/9TH POUSHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 41515 of 2016 (L)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:----------
NEHA MATHEW D/O.DAYSAMMA MATHEW, AGED 16 YEARS, MINOR, KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, MARIKKUNNU P O, CALICUT -12, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER, DAYSAMMA MATHEW.
BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
------------
1. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, KOZHIKODE
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE KOZHIKODE
4. THE CONVENOR, PROGRAMME COMMITTEE, THE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2016-17, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.VINEETHA HARIRAJ
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION IN 30-12-2016,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 41515 of 2016 (L)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS-----------------------EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETIION IN URDU GAZAL
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 29/12/2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: N I L
-----------------------
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.41515 of 2016
---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30[th] day of December, 2016
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner seeks certain directions against therespondents to enable him to participate in the Revenue Districtlevel competition under the aegis of the School Kalolsavam eventhough he has not been found eligible for such participation onaccount of his performance at the Sub District level.
2. The petitioner has made several allegations against the manner in which the competitions were conducted in the SubDistrict level and alleges that the assessment of his performancehas been done incompetently or in a manner that was not inconsonance with the applicable Rules and Regulations.
3. I notice that the School Kalolsavam is being held,conducted and proceeded under the Kalolsavam Manual whichprovides a complete code as to the manner in which thecompetitions are to be held. The mode and modality of disputedresolution are also specifically obtained in the Manual.
4. I have examined the grievance of the petitioner. There is no doubt that he made several allegations which are all withinthe domain of the contested questions of fact, which this Court,acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, is incompetent andis impaired from dwelling into or considering. All that this Courtcan examine, is as to whether the provisions of the Manual hasbeen followed by the authorities in its letter and spirit. ThisCourt can do any more. It is now firmly settled without therequirement of any further restatement that when certain thingsare left in the wisdom of the experts and is to be performed bythem in a manner prescribed, this Court cannot substitute itswisdom, even though this Court may have difference of opinionin the view of such experts.
5. The petitioner in this case has been ranked two in theSub District level of the School Kalolsavam. The petitionertherefore filed an appeal under the Manual before the AppellateCommittee on various allegations. The appeal was preferred asearly as on 29.11.2016. But the appeal had not been heard anddisposed of until 27.12.2016. The petitioner alleges that thisdelay was also part of stratagem to ensure that the petitionerdoes not get an opportunity to contest her case properly.
6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleaderappearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that they havea copy of the order of the Appellate Committee and it is obvioustherefrom that all the allegations made by the petitioner hasbeen considered and disposed of in the manner that ispermissible and requisite under the applicable Manual. Shetherefore says that there is no merit in the contentions of thepetitioner and that the writ petition does not deserve to beordered.
7. I have seen that the petitioner has missed the firstrank by a whisker. I have also examined Ext.P2 order in appeal.It has rejected the petitioner’s claim only stating that theallegations raised by the petitioner is not sustainable. Nothingelse has been stated. It does not say how the petitioner’s appealhas been considered and disposed of. It merely states that hercase is not tenable. I do not think this would be sufficientspecially when it leads to denial of an opportunity to thepetitioner to compete in the next level.
In such circumstances, I direct the second respondentto allow the petitioner to participate in the District level School WPC 41515/2016
Kalolsavam in Urdu recitation which commence on 03.01.2017.No further orders are required in this writ petition and it isordered as above.
JV
sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRANJUDGE