Kerala High Court
WP(C)/41028/2022 of ARJUN U., AGED 14 YEARS Vs STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY on 30 December 2022
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 9TH POUSHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 41028 OF 2022 PETITIONERS: 1 ARJUN U., AGED 14 YEARS S/O. UNNIKRISHNA PILLAI, RESIDING AT KANDATHIL HOUSE, PALLARIMANGALAM POST, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA -
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 9TH POUSHA, 1944WP(C) NO. 41028 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1ARJUN U., AGED 14 YEARSS/O. UNNIKRISHNA PILLAI, RESIDING AT KANDATHIL HOUSE, PALLARIMANGALAM POST, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA - 690107, REPRESENTING THOUGH HIS FATHER UNNIKRISHA PILLAI, RESIDING AT KANDATHIL HOUSE, PALLARIMANGALAM POST, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT – 690107.2KEERTHANA GOPAN, AGED 14 YEARSD/O. GOPAKUMAR C. RESIDING AT GOKULAM, EREZHA NORTH, CHETTIKULANGARAP.O, MAVELIKKARA PIN - 690106. REPRESENTING THROUGH HER FATHER GOPAKUMAR C., AGED 51 YEARS, S/O LATE CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT GOKULAM, EREZHA NORTH, CHETTIKULANGARA P.O., MAVELIKKARA – 690106.3VISHNU VIJAYAN, AGED 14 YEARSS/O VIJAYAN PILLAI, PALLIAMBIL SREERANGAM, EREZHA NORTH, CHETTIKULANGARA P.O., MAVELIKKARA.PIN - 690106. REPRESENTING THROUGH HIS FATHER VIJAYAN PILLAI, PALLIAMBILSREERANGAM, EREZHA NORTH, CHETTIKULANGARA P.O.,MAVELIKKARA – 690106.
REPRESENTING THOUGH HIS FATHER UNNIKRISHA PILLAI, BY ADVS.P.HARIDASBIJU HARIHARANSHIJIMOL M.MATHEWP.C.SHIJINRISHIKESH HARIDAS
RESPONDENTS:
1STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695001.
2THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, VAZHUTHACAUD, POOJAPPURA ROAD, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695014.
3CHAIRMAN
APPEAL COMMITTEE,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT SCHOOL YOUTH FESTIVAL/
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
ALAPPUZHA – 688001.
4THE GENERAL CONVENORALAPPUZHA DISTRICT SCHOOL YOUTH FESTIVAL-2022-23,ALAPPUZHA – 688001.ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT SCHOOL YOUTH FESTIVAL-2022-23,ALAPPUZHA – 688001.
BY SRI.V.S SREEJITH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FORADMISSION ON 30.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
: 3 :
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.41028 of 2022
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 30[th ]day of December, 2022
J U D G M E N T~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Thepetitioners,whoparticipatedinVrindavadhyam competition in the District School Kalolsavamof Alappuzha Revenue District, could not attain First Placeand consequently did not qualify to compete in the StateSchool Kalolsavam.
2. The petitioners contend that the competition whichought to have been performed on a Stage was conducted inthe Open Space in front of the Stage. In the 3[rd] minute of the10 minute performance by the petitioners, a sharp pinpierced into the foot of the 2[nd] petitioner and hence she couldnot perform to the optimum. Consequently, the petitionerscould obtain 6 marks less than the winning team.
W.P.(C) No.41028/2022
: 4 :
3. Though the petitioners preferred appeal, the appeal was dismissed. The petitioners urged that due toinfrastructural deficiencies in the venue of District SchoolKalolsavam, their constitutional right is infringed. Rejectionof their appeal is in violation of the principles of naturaljustice.
4. Heard.
5. This Court considered the scope of interference by this Court in issues of School Kalolsavam, in the judgment inW.P.(C) No.40794 of 2022 and connected cases and heldthat this Court cannot sit in appeal over award of marks bythe panel of Judges. Stage arrangements, technical glitches,poor audio system, lack of space for performance, etc. areissues which cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. This Court held that the Appeal Committees inKalolsavam cannot be equated with ordinary judicial or quasijudicial bodies and the decision of such Appeal Committeesshould be ordinarily accepted as final.
This Court held that the Appeal Committees in : 5 :
7. In the present case, I do not find any compelling reason to interfere with the decision of the AppealCommittee.
Conclusion
The writ petition fails and hence it is dismissed.
aks/04.01.2023
Sd/-N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41028/2022