Kerala High Court
WP(C)/39948/2015 of SONAI SHAJI Vs GENERAL CONVENER on 29 December 2015
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/8TH POUSHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 39948 of 2015 (P) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- SONIA SHAJI, AGED 17 YEARS REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/8TH POUSHA, 1937
WP(C).No. 39948 of 2015 (P)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
SONIA SHAJI, AGED 17 YEARS REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND (FATHER) SHAJI K.R GRACE APARTMENTS DOOR NO.B, AISWARYA ROAD, KONTHURUTHY THEVARA, KOCHI 13.
BY ADVS.SRI.B.VINOD SRI.I.V.PRAMOD
RESPONDENT(S):
Page 1 of 3
1. GENERAL CONVENER 28TH ERNAKULAM DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM OFFICE OF THE DEO ERNAKULAM 682 011. 28TH ERNAKULAM DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM OFFICE OF THE DEO ERNAKULAM 682 011.
2. APPEAL COMMITTEE
2015 SUB DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSVAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & DEO - ERANAKULAM-682011. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & DEO - ERANAKULAM-682011.
3. PROGRAMME COMMITTEE CONVENER 28TH ERNAKULAM REVENUE DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM MARBASIL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL KOTHAMANGALAM 686 691. 28TH ERNAKULAM REVENUE DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM MARBASIL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL KOTHAMANGALAM 686 691.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI MOHAMED SAVAD A
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 39948 of 2015 (P)
Page 2 of 3
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
P1: THE TRUE IMAGE OF THE PLAGUE OF HONOUR PRESENTED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 17/10/2015.
P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF HSS GIRLS BHARATANATYAM EVENT FOR THE 55 OF THE KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS.THE 55 OF THE KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS.
P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN THE NEW INDIA EXPRESS DATED 18/10/2015.DATED 18/10/2015.
P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 18/10/2015.DATED 18/10/2015.
P5: A TRUE COPY NEW ITEM PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DATED 5/01/2014.
P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE RESULTS OF ERNAKULAM SUB DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM 2015-16 FOR HSS GIRLS BHARATANATYAM.KALOLSAVAM 2015-16 FOR HSS GIRLS BHARATANATYAM.
P7: A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B4/8768/2015 DATED 21/12/2015.
P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE EVENT SCHEDULE OF THE 28TH ERNAKULAM REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM.REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
---------------------------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.A TO JUDGE
LSN
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.
--------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No.39948 of 2015
---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29[th] day of December, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner participated in Bharatanatyamcompetition in the Ernakulam Sub District in the HigherSecondary School Kalolsavam. The grievance of thepetitioner in this writ petition is against Ext.P7 order bywhich the appeal filed by her stands rejected on theground that there is a difference of 21 marks between thepetitioner and the participant, who secured first position.Ext.P7 order states that the Appeal Committee found nogrounds for interfering with the decision taken by theJudges, who evaluated the performance of the petitionerand other participants.
2. I heard the arguments of the learned counselfor the petitioner and also the learned GovernmentPleader appearing for the respondents.
3. A reading of Ext.P7 order passed by the Appeal committee would show that it was after considering thecontentions raised by the petitioner, the said committeecame to the conclusion that there is absolutely no W.P.(C). No.39948 of 2015
Conclusion
illegality or irregularity in the assessment of thepetitioner's performance by the Judges. The AppealCommittee found that there is a difference of 21 marksbetween the petitioner and the participant who securedfirst position.
5. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India is not sitting in appeal over the decision taken bythe second respondent Appeal Committee. In theabsence of any vitiating circumstances pointed out in thedecision making process carried out by the secondrespondent while issuing Ext.P7, no interference underArticle 226 is warranted.
In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-ANIL K. NARENDRANJudge
Page 3 of 3
Loading citations and judicial treatment…