Dismissed

Amrutha S.H v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jan 2014WP(C)/10/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A fifth-student petitioner filed a writ petition challenging rejection of appeals regarding prizes won in Kuchipudi, Bharatanatyam, and Mohiniyattam at a youth festival, citing power failure and stage conditions. The court found no merit in the petition as facts were assessed by judging and appellate committees with substantial mark differentials.

What did the court decide?

None. Petitioner is not entitled to participate in the district level competition.

Amrutha S.H Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2014/13TH POUSHA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 10 of 2014 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

AMRUTHA S.H AGED 11 YEARS (MINOR), SKV VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL THRIKKANNAMANGAL, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT REP. BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SUDHARMA K W/O.HARI DEVAN, AJAY NIVAS, ELIYODU AMPALATHUMKALA P.O., EZHUKONE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU

¶9

SRI.S.ABHILASH SMT.CHITHRA.S.BABU

¶10

RESPONDENTS :

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY

¶12

GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001

¶14

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KOTTARAKKARA (CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE SUB DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM KOTTARAKKARA) -691506

¶15

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION THEVALLY, KOLLAM - 691009.

¶16

R BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 10 of 2014 (A)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P-1: THE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF SKV VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THRIKKANNAMANGAL DATED 27.12.2013

¶22

EXT.P-2: THE COPY OF APPEAL REJECTION ORDER DATED 24.12.2013 FOR KUCHIPPUDY

¶23

EXT.P-3: THE COPY OF APPEAL REJECTION ORDERS DATED 24.12.2013 FOR BHARATHANATYAM.

¶24

EXT.P-4: THE COPY OF APPEAL REJECTION ORDERS DATED 24.12.2013 FOR MOHINIYATTAM.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A TO JUDGE

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶30

¶31

W.P.(c) No.10 OF 2014

¶32

¶33

Dated this the 3^rd day of January, 2014

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

The petitioner, who is a fifth standard student of SKV Vocational Higher Secondary School,Thrikkannamangalam had participated in three different disciplines such as 'Kuchupudi', 'Bharathanatyam' and 'Mohiniyattam' in the Sub District Youth Festival held at Kottarakkara. It is stated that the petitioner was awarded only the second prize in 'Kuchupudi' and third prize in 'Bharatanatyam' and 'Mohiniyattam' respectively, with A Grade. By virtue of the turn of events, the petitioner is not in a position to participate in the District level competition.

¶36

The case of the petitioner is that there was power failure and the condition of the stage was bad. Even though the petitioner had approached the Appellate Authority, the appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected and hence the writ petition.

¶37

Heard the learned Government Pleader, who submits on

¶38

W.P.(C)No.10/2014

¶39

¶40

instructions that, there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the writ petition. It is stated that the facts and figures have been duly assessed by the judging committee and the same was subjected to scrutiny by the

¶41

appellate committee as well. It is also stated that in respect of 'Kuchupudi', there is a substantial difference of 22 marks between the petitioner and the student who got the first prize. So also, in the case of 'Bharatanatyam', there is a difference of 25 marks between the petitioner and the first prize winner. In the case of 'Mohiniyattam', the difference is by 8 marks. The learned Government Pleader also points out that the stage manager has not reported any instance of power failure and that the case projected by the petitioner is without any substance.

¶42

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that no interference is called for. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶43

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

sv.

Amrutha S.H v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrutha S.H v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thankamma Kurumban Vs the Tahsildar

Fina K.Jose Vs the Additional Tahsildar

G.Raveendran Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Gegee Sajeev Vs Suresh

Aryalakshmi Wilson Vs State of Kerala

Malu T Vs the Deputy Director of Education