Dismissed

Hadiya K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jan 2018WP(C)/100/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this petition challenging an appellate order dismissing an appeal against the petitioner's team securing 7th place in a district school competition, the High Court found no illegality or arbitrariness. The Court verified the score sheet and observed that the arguments regarding microphone technical issues were not supported by the marks awarded, holding the appeal rejected reasonably.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed.

Hadiya K Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 15TH POUSHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 100 of 2018

¶5

--------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

HADIYA K, (MINOR), AGED 15 YEARS, STUDENT OF ILAHIYYA HSS, KAPPAD, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AND GUARDIAN MOHAMMED. K, THEJUS, THUVVAKKODE, CHEMANCHERI P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI SMT.T.RASINI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1.STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GENERAL

¶11

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶12

2.THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND CHAIRMAN,

¶13

APPEAL COMMITTEE (DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKKODE - 673 004.

¶14

3.THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,

¶15

(THE GENERAL CONVENER, KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM),

¶16

JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

¶17

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.VINITHA B.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

WP(C).No. 100 of 2018 (J)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF AYISHA FITHA. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF AMESHA. K. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF MANORAMA DAILY.

¶24

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS - NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PS TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶30

W.P.(C) No.100 of 2018

¶31

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 5^th day of January, 2018

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

Petitioner's team participated in the 'Oppana' (HS - Girls) competition in the District School Kalolsavam. However the team could secure only 7^th place with a difference of 15 marks than the first place winner. This disables the petitioner and her team to participate in the State School Kalolsavam Being aggrieved by such a situation, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Committee, which was dismissed as per Ext.P5 order dated 28.12.2017. It is thus challenging Ext.P5 order and seeking other consequential reliefs this writ petition is filed.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and documents on record as well as the score sheet produced by the Government Pleader during the course of argument.

¶35

Copy of the appeal memorandum is not produced along with the writ petition. However, from the order

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 100 of 2018

¶37

¶38

passed by the Appellate Committee, it is evident that, the reason assigned for preferring the appeal is that, due to the technical problem i.e., electric shock from the mike hindered the singing artists from singing the song well and it adversely affected the total performance. To the said grievance raised by the petitioner, the Appellate Committee has stated that, the appeal petition along with the records produced and connected files were verified. It is also stated that, the petitioner's team has secured only 7^th place with a difference of 15 marks with the 1^st position. Therefore, the reasons put forth by the petitioner for preferring the appeal are seen not genuine and hence it deserves to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner heavily relied on the score sheet and submitted that, due to the shock that was prevalent in the mike at the time of performance, the singing artist could not sing the song well which affected the performance totally. I have verified the score sheet.

¶39

W.P.(C) No. 100 of 2018

¶40

¶41

According to the petitioner, petitioner was Code No.17. From the score sheet it is evident that, out of 20 marks, petitioner's team was given 17, 16, 15, 16 and 17 on various aspects of the performance. Therefore, it cannot be said that, the defect occurred in the mike stood in the way of the petitioner performing well. I also find that, many of the participants got less marks than the petitioner in the performance. Therefore, in my considered opinion, there are no established circumstances put forth by the petitioner to arrive at a different conclusion than one arrived at by the Appellate Committee. Appellate Committee has taken into account the grievance pointed out by the petitioner and even though in a short and crisp form the reasons are assigned and the appeal preferred by the petitioner is dismissed.

¶42

Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P5 order, there being no illegality, arbitrariness or other

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 100 of 2018

¶44

¶45

legal infirmities on the part of the Appellate Committee in deciding the appeal.

¶46

Resultantly writ petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed.

¶47

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶48

smv 5.1.2018

Hadiya K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hadiya K 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

T.P.Sajad Vs N.C.Ajith Kumar

Anitha.G.L Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

P.M.Jose Vs the District Lottery Officer

Kavya Vijay (Minor) Vs State of Kerala

Devika Suresh Vs General Convener, Kerala State School Kalolsavam

Anna Jomy Vs State Level School Kalotsavam 2017-18 Committee