Kerala High Court
WP(C)/41524/2022 of KRISHNA PRIYA Vs DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, 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. 41524 OF 2022 PETITIONER KRISHNA PRIYA AGED 15 YEARS (MINOR), D/O VANDANA.U., REPRESENTED BY HER GRANDMOTHER, USHA RANI, AGED 66 YEARS, W/O VIPIN VIJAYAN,
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. 41524 OF 2022
PETITIONER
KRISHNA PRIYA
AGED 15 YEARS
(MINOR), D/O VANDANA.U., REPRESENTED BY HER GRANDMOTHER, USHA RANI, AGED 66 YEARS, W/O VIPIN VIJAYAN, SOWBHAGHYA THEKKEKARA, KIZHAKKU PALLIPPAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 564.
BY ADV K.RAJESH KANNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
O/O THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
2KALOLSAVAM COMMITTEE CONVENER, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, O/O THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
3DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,O/O THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, STATUE, PALAYAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.O/O THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, STATUE, PALAYAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
4CHAIRMANAPPEAL COMMITTEE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, O/O THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 036.APPEAL COMMITTEE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, O/O THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 036.
GP V.S SREEJITH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON30.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).41722/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
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. 41722 OF 2022
PETITIONER
KRISHNA PRIYA VAGED 15 YEARSD/O. VANDHANA V., REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER VANDHANA V, D/O.USHA VIJAYAN, SOWBHAGYA, PALLIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA - 690 512BY ADVS.ESM.KABEERC.SHEEBA(K/273/2012)\
RESPONDENTS:
1THE GENERAL CONVENERDEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023
2THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT LEVEL APPELLATE COMMITTEE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023
GP V.S SREEJITH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FORADMISSION ON 30.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).41524/2022, THECOURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
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
Dated this the 30[th] day of December, 2022
The petitioner in both these writ petitions participated in the District School Kalolsavam of Thirvananthapuram District in‘Bharatanatyam’ and ‘Keralanadanam’. The petitioner could notget the first prize in the both the items. Aggrieved, thepetitioner is before this Court.
2. As regards the competition in ‘Bharatanatyam’, thepetitioner would submit that the carpets were not laid properlyin the stage. After every event, the Stage Manager is expectedto ensure proper laying of carpet, which was not done. Thishas seriously affected the performance of the petitioner.Counsel for the petitioner further argued that inspite of request,the Appellate Committee did not peruse the video recordingand properly appreciated the grounds urged by the petitioner inappeal.
As regards the competition in ‘Bharatanatyam’, the
3. Counsel for the petitioner would further submit thatin Bharatanatyam as well as Keralanadanam events, thoughthe petitioner filed appeals, the petitioner’s appeals wererejected. At the same time, in both these items the appealspreferred by two candidates, who were born twins and whoranked No.6, were allowed. This would show that there isfavourtism playing in the field.
4. As regards the Keralanadanam event, counsel forthe petitioner urged that the judges who put marks in the eventwere experts in Bharatanatyam. They had no basic knowledgeof Keralanadanam. Therefore, they are not competent toassess the comparitive merits of the performance ofKeralanadanam teams.
5. Counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that theappeal filed by the petitioner as regards Keralanadanam wasrejected on the ground that during the performance thepetitioner showed stiffness. Counsel for the petitioner would urge that the Appeal Committee had no basic knowledge ofKeralanadanam as the stiffness is a requirement in theperformance of Keralanadanam. In view of the above, theorders in appeals impugned in these writ petitions are liable tothe set aside, contended the counsel for the petitioner.
6. Heard.
7. The prime grievance projected in the competitionrelating to Bharatanatyam is that the carpet was not properlyand neatly laid on the stage, which adversely affected thepetitioner’s performance. This Court in the judgment in W.P.(C)No.40794 of 2022 and connected cases has held that thestandard or drawbacks of infrastructure cannot be a reason forthis Court to interfere in the awarding of marks. This Court heldthat this is primarily an area of question of fact and this Court isnot equipped to adjudicate in such matters. The petitioneralleges that the video of the performance of Bharatanatyamwas not perused by the Appeal Committee. I find that the
Appeal Committee need not invariably watch the videoperformance of the candidates in all appeals. Only when thepetitioner makes out a prima facie case or when circumstancesso warrant, the Appeal Committee need to view the videorecordings. In respect of Bharatanatyam event, the petitionerhas not made up a prima facie case.
8. As regards the Keralanadanam event, the allegationis that judges are not qualified as their expertise was in thefield of Bharatanatyam. In school festivals, the judges aredecided on the basis of a laid down criteria. TheKeralanadanam as well as Bharatanatyam are dance events.Merely because a person is expert in one form of dance willnot by itself indicate that he is not fit to judge other forms ofdance.
9. The further allegation of the petitioner is that in boththe items, appeals filed by two candidates who stood at 6[th]place and who were twins, have been allowed and they were permitted to participate in the State Kalolsavam. Merelybecause two students, who are twins participated in differentdance items and their appeals have been allowed, by itselfwould not indicate any bias, mala fide or favouritsm withoutthere being anything more to establish bias, malafide andfavouritsm.
In view of the above, I find no merit in these writ petitions.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.
sd/-
hmh
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41524/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C4/750581/2022DATED 06.12.2022 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.11.2022 IN WPC NO.37557/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41722/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITSExhibit P1TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN THE APPEAL DATED 06.12.2022
Conclusion
Exhibit P2TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESULT HS GENERAL OF THE PETITIONER CODE NO.283