Dismissed

Nikitha Joseph v. the Director of Public Instructions

Kerala HC6 Jan 2015WP(C)/35286/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, young dancers who secured 5th place in the District Level School Youth Festival, challenged the award by alleging unfair evaluation and stage hazards. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, finding no ground for interference as the appellate committee had properly analyzed the evaluation traits and the stage conditions were equally applicable to all teams. Interference is declined.

What did the court decide?

Interference declined and the writ petition is dismissed.

Nikitha Joseph Vs the Director of Public Instructions — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/16TH POUSHA, 19361

¶5

WP(C).No. 35286 of 2014 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. NIKITHA JOSEPH, AGED 17 YEARS

¶8

D/O.PREETHA, KURICHIPARAMBIL HOUSE,

¶9

DESABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR

¶10

COCHIN 682 017 REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND

¶11

NEXT FRIEND PREETHA DO DO DO.

¶12

2. SREELAKSHMI C.S, AGED 17 YEARS

¶13

D/O.GIJI, CHERUPARAMBIL HOUSE, K.K ROAD, THRIKKAKARA

¶14

COCHIN 21 REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER

¶15

AND NEXT FRIEND GIJI DO DO.

¶16

3. ANARSHA B, AGED 17 YEARS

¶17

D/O.BIJU, ARUNAM HOUSE, SWAMIPPADI

¶18

ELAMAKKARA P.O

¶19

COCHIN 26 REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND BIJU.

¶20

4. SONIYA SHAJI, AGED 16 YEARS

¶21

D/O.ROSEMINI, GRACE APARTMENT, KOMTHURUTHY

¶22

THEVARA REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND ROSEMINI.

¶23

5. SARANYA M.D, AGED 17 YEARS

¶24

D/O.BINDU DIVAKARAN, MADASSERRY HOUSE, CHERANELLOOR P.O

¶25

KOCHI 682 034 REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER

¶26

AND GUARDIAN BINDU DIVAKARAN DO DO DO.

¶27

6. MARIA NIKHITHA, AGED 16 YEARS

¶28

D/O.ROSELIN, THATTASSERIL HOUSE, PARAKKELI ROAD

¶29

NETTOOR P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND ROSELIN DO.DO.DO.

¶30

7. NAMITHA ROMEO, AGED 17 YEARS

¶31

D/O.HELEN T.P, THATICKAL HOUSE, 14/930

¶32

PANDIKUDY

¶33

COCHIN 682 002 REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN AND

¶34

NEXT FRIEND HELEN T.P DO DO.

¶35

BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA

....2/-

..2..

WP(C).No. 35286 of 2014 (I)

¶40

RESPONDENT(S):

¶41

1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS D P I OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM 695 001.

¶42

2. THE CHAIRMAN ERNAKULAM REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL FESTIVAL APPEAL COMMITTEE, AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT , DEPUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 682 030.

¶43

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT

¶44

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶45

¶46

WP(C).No. 35286 of 2014 (I)

¶47

APPENDIX

¶48

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶49

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO F/18209/2014(19) DATED 19-12-2014 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶50

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE PETITIONER'S IS PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE

¶51

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FOR THE STATE LEVAL COMPLETITION DATED 25-1-2014 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER

¶52

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FOR THE STATE ELEVEL COMPETITION DATED 25-1-2014 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER

¶53

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶59

========================

¶60

W.P.(C). No. 35286 of 2014

¶61

¶62

Dated this the 6^th day of January, 2015

¶63

JUDGMENT

¶64

Petitioners were participants to the Sanghanrutham (Group Dance) in District Level School Youth Festival, 2014 conducted on 2.12.2014, representing St. Teresa's Convent Girls Higher Secondary School, Ernakulam and secured only the 5^th position as per Ext.P2.

¶65

The case of the petitioner is that, the performance made

¶66

by the petitioners' team was the best. But it was not properly appreciated in spite of the fact that they presented the theme “Chandanakkattil”, presenting the importance of protection of nature and against the destruction of the nature for personal luxuries. They preferred an appeal before the appellate committee, which did not turn to be fruitful and hence the writ petition.

¶67

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who

¶68

points out that the grounds raised by the petitioners is only with reference to the 'slippery nature' of the stage because of the

¶69

W.P.C. No.35286 of 2014 -2-

¶70

carpet laid over the tiles and further that, some materials which were used by the team who participated immediately before the petitioners' team were left on the stage which caused much hindrance, in turn affecting the performance. It is also seen that, the grounds raised by the petitioners were meticulously analysed by the appellate committee, who found that there was proper evaluation of traits of teams concerned, by the judging committee and that there was a difference of '29' marks between the 1^st prize winners and petitioners' team. It is also relevant to note that the stage was set for all the teams and if at all any difficulty was there it was equally applicable to all the teams and nothing prevented the petitioners from causing the stage to be cleaned or by reporting the matter to the stage manager, before starting the event. These aspects were also considered by the appellate authority vide Ext.P1.

¶71

In the said circumstance, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the matter. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.

¶72

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶73

kp/-

Nikitha Joseph v. the Director of Public Instructions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikitha Joseph v. the Director of Public Instructions

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

S.Linklal Vs Union of India

Kammadalikkutty Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Rageena Vs State of Kerala & Others

Athulya.a.S. Vs the State of Kerala

Abdul Sathar Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Palarivattom

K.a.Joseph Vs the District Collector, Kottayam