Dismissed
Nirmala Theresa v. State of Kerala
Kerala HCWP(C)/38738/2016
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2017/2ND CHAITHRA, 1939
WP(C).No. 38738 of 2016 (N)
PETITIONER(S):
NIRMALA THERESA, AGED 18 YEARS, D/O.P.R.JOSEPH JOSHY, PULLOSERY HOUSE, THEVARA P.O., KOCHI - 13.
BY ADVS.SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:-:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM-695001.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM-682011.
BY ADV. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 38738 of 2016 (N)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------EXHIBIT P1. THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGING PAYMENT OF APPEAL. EXHIBIT P2. THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3. THE TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT IN STATE LEVEL COMPETITION OF MATHEMATICS FAIR 2016-2017.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------
NIL
TRUE COPY
P.S. TO JUDGE
EL
CR
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
W.P.(C). No.38738 of 2016
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2017
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the 2nd respondent to grant grade to the petitioner equivalent to her marks in the State Level competition of Mathematics Fair 2016-2017conducted by the S.N. Trust Higher Secondary School, Shornur and to issue a direction to the 2nd respondent to withdraw Ext.P3 result and republish it after granting grades and marks to the petitioner.
W.P.(C). No.38738 of 2016
2
respondent, evident from Ext.P1. After hearing the parties, 3rd respondent allowed the appeal and has given an opportunity to the petitioner to contest in the State Level competition. Thereupon, petitioner attended in the State Level competition and she has performed well. According to the petitioner, petitioner acquired 70 marks out of 100, which is equivalent to grade B as per the prescribed norms. Two persons have secured 74 and 72 and they are given 1st and 2nd place with A grade. Other candidates got marks less than the petitioner. Ext.P3 is the result of the State Level competition. In Ext.P3 petitioner was given zero point and no grade, at the same time the contestants having lower marks than the petitioner were allotted with higher grades and points. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that the said act of the respondents are highly discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that, the authorities ought to have conferred the petitioner at least grade equivalent to the marks she acquired in the contest. If the petitioner is allotted with grade, she
W.P.(C). No.38738 of 2016
3
would get grace marks in her career and it would be beneficial to her to achieve higher marks in the academic level. These are the background facts projected by the petitioner to secure the reliefs sought for in the writ petition.
W.P.(C). No.38738 of 2016
4
State level competition by way of appeal allowed from the District Level and court orders should have obtained more marks than the marks obtained by the originally qualified participants from the same district in same item. Only those participants who secure more marks are eligible for certificate. Therefore, as specified above, petitioner could not secure more marks than the two students specified above since the petitioner participated in the State level competition through appeal allowed by the Deputy Director of Education, Ernakulam. Petitioner as per the provisions of the Manual is not entitled to get the grade and certificate since she has not secured the marks at par with the aforespecified two students participated from the Ernakulam District in the same item. Therefore, according to the respondents, non grant of the grade and certificate to the petitioner is in accordance with law.
W.P.(C). No.38738 of 2016
5
contained under the Manual is only with respect to participant in the State Level competition by way of appeal allowed by court orders and it will not apply to an order passed by a statutory authority permitting the petitioner to participate in the State level competition. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the stipulations contained under the Manual is not applicable in the instant case.
“çµÞ¿Äß ÕßÇßÏßÜâæ¿ Ø¢ØíÅÞÈÄÜ ÎÄíØøJßÈí ÉæC¿áAáK ÕßÆcÞVjßµZ ¦ ¼ßÜïÏßW ¥çÄ §ÈJßW ÈßKᢠÄßøæE¿áAæMG ÎÄíØøÞVjßAí ÜÍßAáK çÉÞÏßaßæÈAÞZ µâ¿áÄW çÉÞÏßaí µøØíÅÎÞAßÏÞW ÎÞdÄçÎ ÎÄíØøËÜJßW ©ZæM¿áJß ØVGßËßAxí ÈWµáµÏáUâ.”
W.P.(C). No.38738 of 2016
6
counsel for petitioner is that, the court prescribed in the aforesaid particular clause is only a court of law and not an authority constituted under the Manual for deciding any appeal. Nowhere in the manual the court is defined. As per Chambers Concise Dictionary – New Edition, 'court' is defined to mean also “a hall of justice (law); the judges and officials who preside there; any body of persons assembled to decide causes; a sitting of such body”.
W.P.(C). No.38738 of 2016
7
considered opinion, since the petitioner participated in the event fully knowing well that, only if the petitioner secures marks above the marks secured by the persons selected in the competition, petitioner is entitled to get grace mark and certificate. In my considered opinion, the court referred to in the manual will include the authority prescribed thereunder. Petitioner is not entitled to get the grade and certificate, as per the provision of the manual quoted above.
Writ petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE
smv 23.03.2017
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner participating in a State Level competition by court order is entitled to grade and certificate equivalent to her marks if she fails to secure higher marks than original qualifiers
Whether the phrase 'court of law' in the competition manual includes the statutory authority allowing the petitioner to participate.
Whether the non-grant of grade and certificate to the petitioner violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
NIRMALA THERESA
STATE OF KERALA
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM
THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM
SHAJI P. CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court