WP(C)/35407/2014 of DEVASRI DEVADATH Vs THE KOZHIKODE REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL FESTIVAL COMMITTEE on 30 December 2014

JUDGMENT

The petitioner participated in the item 'Kathakali' (Single)

Girls in Kozhikkode Sub District School Kalolsavam. Thepetitioner secured 2[nd] place with 'A' grade. The grievance of thepetitioner is that the evaluation of the performance of theparticipants made by the judges are not in terms of the relevantrules. Raising such contention, an appeal was filed before theAppeal Committee, which ended in dismissal by Ext.P5 order.Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached thisCourt by filing the writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and alsothe learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned Government Pleader, on instruction,submits that the petitioner secured only 215 marks; whereas theparticipant who secured first place obtained 250 marks. Duringthe course of hearing, it was brought to my notice that thepetitioner participated in the Sub District level on the strength ofan order passed by the Appeal Committee.

4. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar.

The main thrust of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, going by Clause 8.07 of theKerala School Youth Festival Manual, when there are only lessthan '3' participants in an item, the participants can be sent forhigher level competition based on their grade. But, as alreadypointed out by the learned Government Pleader, there isconsiderable difference in the marks secured by the petitionerand the participant who secured the 1[st] place. In suchcircumstances, relying on the Clause 8.07 of the Youth FestivalManual, the petitioner cannot contend that she should be sentfor higher level competition based on the grading obtained in theSub District Level.

5. A perusal of Ext.P4 order passed by the AppealCommittee, the only contention raised by the petitioner beforethe said committee was that he could not perform the item wellas his crown became loose while performing Kathakali. Afterconsidering the said contention raised by the petitioner, theAppeal Committee by Ext.P4, rejected the appeal and confirmingthe evaluation made by the Judges.

6. Further, the petitioner has not chosen to produce before

this Court a copy of the memorandum of appeal filed before theAppeal Committee. In this writ petition, the petitioner cannotraise contentions which were not even raised before the AppealCommittee. The petitioner has no specific case of any malafides against either the Judges of the Appeal Committee. Whenexperts in the field have assessed the performance, which is nowconfirmed in the order passed by the Appeal Committee, thisCourt will not be justified in interfering with their decision underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, in the absence of anyvitiating circumstances.

I find absolutely no grounds to interfere with Ext.P4 orderpassed by the Appeal Committee and therefore, the writ petitionfails and the same is dismissed.

stu

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN ,

JUDGE.