Kerala High Court
WP(C)/41504/2016 of ARYAPARVATHY S.NAIR 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. 41504 of 2016 (K) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- ARYAPARVATHY S.NAIR AGED 16 (MINOR), D/O.SHANKARANKUTTY, GOPI NIVAS,
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. 41504 of 2016 (K)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):-------------
ARYAPARVATHY S.NAIR AGED 16 (MINOR), D/O.SHANKARANKUTTY, GOPI NIVAS, PULINCHODU.P.O., VAIKKOM, REP. BY HER MOTHER AND LAWFUL GUARDIAN, SMT.DEEPTHI SHANKAR, AGED 38, W/O.SANKARANKUTTY.
BY ADV. SRI.MANU ROY
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION ERNAKULAM.682 011.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON30-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 41504 of 2016 (K) ---------------------------- APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS-----------------------EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE G.O.-M.S.NO.338/2012/G.E.D.EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 22.11.2016.EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.12.2016.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL----------------------- sm //TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.41504 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 allwithin the domain of the contested questions of fact, which thisCourt, acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, isincompetent and is impaired from dwelling into or considering.All that this Court can examine, is as to whether the provisions ofthe Manual has been followed by the authorities in its letter andspirit. This Court can do any more. It is now firmly settledwithout the requirement of any further restatement that whencertain things are left in the wisdom of the experts and is to beperformed by them in a manner prescribed, this Court cannotsubstitute its wisdom, even though this Court may havedifference of opinion in the view of such experts.
5. In the case at hand, the petitioner has secured secondrank in the Sub District level competition of the Kalolsavam. Sheasserts that she missed the first rank by a single mark. She saysthat, therefore, she had made an appeal before the AppellateCommittee as early as on 22.11.2016 and the same was disposedof only on 26.12.2016. The order shown as Ext.P3 in the writpetition is the order of the Appellate Committee.
6. Learned Government Pleader would submit that theallegations made by the petitioner against the conduct of the Kalolsavam and the judging is completely baseless and withoutany reason. She says that it is obvious from the orders that thepetitioner had been able to secure only the second rank and that,therefore, she is not entitled to compete in the District levelcompetition.
7. I have examined Ext.P3. It is obvious therefrom thatthe petitioner has missed the first rank by a mere one mark. It isalso obvious that it is not a unanimous decision of the Judges butone of them had found that the petitioner requires to be rankedabove the first rank holder. It is therefore clear that thepetitioner is extremely accomplished and deserving of anopportunity of taking part in the next level of the competition.
In such circumstances, I direct the second respondent topermit the petitioner to take part in the District level SchoolKalolsavam in Kuchippudy, commencing on 03.01.2017. Nofurther orders are required in this writ petition and it is orderedas above.
JV
sd/-DEVAN RAMACHANDRANJUDGE