WP(C)/41436/2016 of JYOTSNA Vs DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS on 30 December 2016

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 was placed third rank inOttamthullal at the Sub District level of the competition. Shehad, therefore, challenged this before the Appellate Committee.According to the petitioner, they have not been communicatedwith any order on the appeal as on today.

6. The learned Government pleader appearing on behalfof the respondents would however state that the appeal was infact heard and disposed of on 27.12.2016 and that a copy of the order in appeal was received by the petitioner. She, therefore,says that the petitioner cannot have any further grievance. Thisis completely controverted by the petitioner who still maintainsthat the petitioner yet to receive any order in this appeal.

7. In the nature of the contested facts and because thenext level of competition is eminent, I think this is a fit casewhere the petitioner can be granted an order to allow her toparticipate in the District level of the School Kalolsavam.

In such circumstances, I direct the second respondent topermit the petitioner to participate and take part in the Districtlevel School Kalolsavam in Ottamthullal, commencing on03.01.2017. No further orders are required in this writ petitionand it is ordered as above.

JV

sd/-DEVAN RAMACHANDRANJUDGE