Kerala High Court
Ann Mary J Aquina vs State Of Kerala on 7 January, 2017
Author: Shaji P. Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/26TH POUSHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 1338 of 2017 (N)
---------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
ANN MARY J AQUINA,
AGED 13 YEARS (MINOR)
REPRESENTED BY FATHER/
GUARDIAN JOLLY PETER,
PADINJATT MURI HOUSE,
KUMBALANGI P.O., COCHIN - 7.
BY ADV. SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
3. CHAIRMAN (APPELLATE AUTHORITY)
DISTRICT YOUTH FESTIVAL APPEAL COMMITTEE,
ERNAKULAM - 682 030.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
ERNAKULAM - 676 519.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 1338 of 2017 (N)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------
EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AT THE
REVENUE DISTRICT LEVEL IN 2014-15
BHARATHANATYAM.
EXT.P1A : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AT THE
REVENUE DISTRICT LEVEL IN 2015-16 MOHINIATTAM.
EXT.P1B : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AT THE
REVENUE DISTRICT LEVEL IN 2015-16
NADODI NRUTHAM.
EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AT THE ALL
KERALA CHILDREN'S FEST 2016.
EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE RESULTS
PUBLISHED IN THE INTERNET.
EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.F1/26502/2016
DATED 7/1/2017.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
-----------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No.1338 of 2017
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2017
JUDGMENT
Petitioner participated in Kuchupudi dance in the High School section of the Ernakulam Revenue District School Kalolsavam 2016-2017. Petitioner could secure only 2nd place with A grade, which disabled her from participating in the State School Youth Festival. Being aggrieved, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Committee constituted for the purpose and suffered Ext.P4 order. It is thus challenging Ext.P4 and seeking other related reliefs this writ petition is filed.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the petitioner.
3. Copy of the appeal memorandum is not produced along with the writ petition. But from Ext.P4 the grievance voiced by the petitioner is clear that, the announcement of the code number and the song started simultaneously but W.P.(C). No.1338 of 2017. 2 curtain was raised lately and this affected her performance. To the grievance voiced so by the petitioner, the Appellate Committee met on 6.1.207 has verified the score sheet and the tabulation sheet and ensured that, the Judges have assigned the marks to all the participants in a balanced manner. It is also stated that, there is a difference of 25 marks by and between the 1st rank holder and the petitioner. It is also found by the Committee that there is no illegality, shortcomings or other discrepancies in the evaluation done by the Judges. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
4. The main contention advanced by learned counsel for petitioner in the writ petition is that, there is a substantial difference of 25 marks by and between the 1st rank holder and the petitioner even though petitioner has secured 2nd prize. From Ext.P4 order the marks awarded by the Judges are clear. From the marks awarded to the 1st prize winner, it can be seen that, a consistency is maintained and Judge No.1 has given 85 marks while Judges 2 and 3 granted 90 and 92 W.P.(C). No.1338 of 2017. 3 marks whereas to the petitioner, Judges 1 to 3 have awarded 80, 77 and 75 marks respectively.
5. In my considered opinion, the basis on which Ext.P4 appeal was considered by the Appellate Committee was in accordance with the evaluation done by the Judges and it cannot be said that, there is any arbitrariness or illegality especially when sufficient reasons are assigned. While dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, it is also stated therein that, petitioner was heard personally also. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P4 order passed by the Appellate Authority.
Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE smv 17.1.2017