Dismissed

Devi.P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jan 2012WP(C)/184/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a minor folk dancer awarded third place at a sub-district festival, filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the order declaring her ineligible for district level competition. She alleged adverse conditions affected her performance. The court held that adjudicating performance or results requires expert opinion and hearing other competitors, which was not feasible in a writ petition b

What the court decided

AI extract

Devi.P Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/14TH POUSHA 1933

¶5

WPC.No. 184 of 2012 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

DEVI.P., (MINOR), D/O PRIYA PRABHA BHAVANAM, MARU NORTH ALUMKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPALLY, PIN- 690 521 REPRESENTED BY THE NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER PRIYA.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN SRI.P.V.BALAKRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVENREMNT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIURVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶12

3. APPEAL COMMITTEE, SUB DISTRICT SCHOOL YOUTH FESTIVAL, KARUNAGAPALLY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN D.E.O, KOLOLAM- 691 001.

¶13

BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.M.J. RAJASHREE

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-01-2012 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

svs

¶16

W.P.(C). NO. 184/2012

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2-13053/100/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26/12/2011.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE.

svs

S. Siri Jagan, J.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶26

W.P(C) No. 184 of 2012

¶27

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶28

Dated this, the 4^th day of January, 2012.

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioner participated in the folk dance competition in the Sub District School Youth Festival, Karunagappally. The petitioner was awarded A Grade and third place in the competition. It was not sufficient for becoming eligible to participate in the District level competitions. The petitioner has therefore filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶31

“i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P1 and quash the same;

¶32

ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to declare that the petitioner is also eligible to participate in the District School Youth Festival for the item U.P. Section Folk Dance;

¶33

iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to allow the petitioner and her team to participate provisionally in the District School Youth Festival for the item U.P. Section Folk Dance to be held at Model Higher Secondary School for Boys, Kollam.”

¶34

According to the petitioner, the petitioner's performance was adversely affected by the sound and light conditions provided and therefore the petitioner should be permitted to participate in the District level competition. The further contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner's appeal has been rejected by a non-speaking order.

¶35

I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.

¶36

I can only sympathize with the petitioner. I cannot

¶37

W.P(C) No. 184 of 2012 -: 2 :-

¶38

decide on the basis of affidavits in a writ petition as to whether the reasons stated by the petitioner are correct and as to who among the participants has performed better than the others. Those are all matters which should be left to experts in the field, which this Court is not. In any event, the petitioner can be permitted to participate in the next level competition only if I overturn the results of the competition, for which I will have to necessarily hear the other competitors as well, who are not parties in this writ petition.

¶39

In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

¶41

Tds/

Devi.P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Devi.P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Gopinathan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Anita Jacob Vs Union of India

Smt.Mary Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Ms.Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. Vs Reg.P.F.Fund Commissioner,Ktm

Sudhi.v.S. @ Sruthimon Vs District Collector

Rahul Vs District Collector