Kerala High Court
WP(C)/41505/2016 of AISWARYA LEKSHMI 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. 41505 of 2016 (K) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- AISWARYA LEKSHMI AGED 17 (MINOR), D/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, POONTHOPPIL 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. 41505 of 2016 (K)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):-------------
AISWARYA LEKSHMI
AGED 17 (MINOR), D/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, POONTHOPPIL HOUSE, KALAVOOR PO, ALAPPUZHA, REP. BY HER FATHER AND LAWFULGUARDIAN, UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 50, S/O.RAGHAVAN.
BY ADVS.SRI.MANU ROY SMT.K.N.BINDU
RESPONDENT(S):--------------
1. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONs, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER CHERTHALA.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.VINEETHA HARIRAJ
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-12-2016,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
P1 COPY OF THE G.O. M.S NO.338/2012/G.E.D
P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 30.11.2016
P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2016
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: N I L
-----------------------
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.41505 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 this case, the petitioner alleges that she missed thefirst place by two marks and that she has been placed only thirdin the Sub District level. She alleges that the stage was unstableand she was not able to hear the music properly due to defects inacoustics. On these allegations, she had preferred an appealbefore the Appellate Committee. It appears that the AppellateCommittee considered the appeal on 23.12.2016 and rejected itas per Ext.P3 order.
6. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf ofthe respondents would submit assertively that the allegationsmade by the petitioner are completely trivial and which does notdeserve deeper consideration. However, it is not controvertedthat the performance had not been videographed and that theappellate committe could not have therefore assessed theperformance of he petitioner independently.
7. It is obvious that the petitioner is also anaccomplished dancer. She seem to have missed the second placeby two marks and that too perhaps on account of thecircumstances that she has listed in the appeal. I do not deem itnecessary to go into the validity or otherwise at the allegationsmade by her in the appeal. I have noticed that since herperformance had not been videographed at the Sub Districtlevel, it could not have been possible for the AppellateCommittee to assess her performance independently. I,therefore, deem it necessary that the petitioner be given onemore opportunity to prove her excellence in the next level.
In such circumstances, I direct the second respondent topermit the petitioner to participate in the District level School WPC No.41505 /2016
Kalolsavam in Bharatanatyam, commencing on 03.01.2017. Nofurther orders are required in this writ petition and it is orderedas above.
JV
sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRANJUDGE