Dismissed

Meera S v. Chairman, Appeal Committee

Kerala HC6 Jan 2015WP(C)/91/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a girl student, filed a writ petition challenging her assessment as the 4th position winner in folk dance and Bharathanatyam competitions, alleging only 4th position was correct despite claims of good performance. The court rejected the plea regarding sunlight affecting performance as others performed on the same stage and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed and interference is declined.

Meera S Vs Chairman, Appeal Committee — 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.91 of 2015 (J)

¶6

/PETITIONER:

¶7

MEERA.S,AGED 15 YEARS,STUDENT, MAYYANAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MAYYANAD,KOLLAM,REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER SUNIL DUTT,MAYOORAM, KOOTTIKKADA.P.O,THATTAMALA,KOLLAM-691020.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.I.S.LAILA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE CHAIRMAN, SUB DISTRICT LEVEL APPELLATE COMMITTEE, SUB DISTRICT LEVEL (KOLLAM DISTRICT) SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2014-2015 & DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM-691006.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM-691006.

¶12

3. GENERAL CONVENER, DISTRICT LEVEL (KOLLAM DISTRICT) SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM-2014-2015-691006.

¶13

4. THE GENERAL CONVENER, KOLLAM REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2014-2015, KOLLAM-691009.

¶14

R1 TO R4 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No.91 of 2015 (J)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1:TRUE COPY OF THE MERIT CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER IN MOHINIYATTAM.

¶21

EXT.P2:TRUE COPY OF THE MERIT CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER IN BHARATHA NATYAM.

¶22

EXT.P3:TRUE COPY OF THE MERIT CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER IN NADODI NRUTHUM.

¶23

EXT.P4:TRUE COPY OF THE MERIT CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER IN KUCHUPPUDI.

¶24

EXT.P5:TRUE COPY OF THE PARTICIPANT'S CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR PARTICIPATING CHATHANNUR SUB DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM.

¶25

EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT PUBLISHED IN NADODI NRUTHAM (GIRLS).

¶26

EXT.P7:TRUE COPY OF THE RESWULT PUBLISHED IN BHARATHANATYAM (GIRLS).

¶27

EXT.P8:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A5/10340/2014 (36) DATED 15.12.2014 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXT.P9:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A5/10340/2014 (14) dated 15.12.2014 PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT.

¶29

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶35

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 91 of 2015

¶37

¶38

Dated, this the 6^th day of January, 2015

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

The petitioner was a participant in 'Folk dance' and 'Bharathanatyam' competitions held recently in the Chathannur Sub District Kalolsavam. According to the petitioner, though the petitioner performed well, after evaluation, she was awarded only the 4^th position with A Grade in both the events, which according to the petitioner is not correct and hence appeals were preferred. . But the appeals were dismissed as borne by Exts. P8 and P9, which in turn are under challenge in this writ petition.

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the stage was erected facing the west and since the performance of the petitioner was at about 3.00 p.m, sunlight directly fell on the face of the petitioner, which adversely affected her performance.

¶42

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that there is absolutely no pith or substance in the averments raised in the writ petition. It is pointed out that in respect of Bharata Natyam the first prize winner got 256 marks, whereas the petitioner [who is placed at 4^th place] could secure only 241 marks and in

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 91 of 2015

¶44

: 2 :

¶45

respect of Folk dance, the first prize winner got 243 marks, whereas the petitioner [who is placed at 4^th place] could secure only 221 marks. As such, there is a substantial margin of 15 and 22 marks respectively. With regard to the contention as to the erection of stage, the learned Government Pleader submits that all the participants performed the events on the same stage. There is no plea of malafides.

¶46

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that there is no tenable ground. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶49

kmd

Meera S v. Chairman, Appeal Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meera S v. Chairman, Appeal Committee

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