Disposed

Arya.H v. Univeristy of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Aug 2020WP(C)/8551/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A student challenged Rule 21 of the Kerala University Youth Festival Rules 2020 regarding tie-breaker criteria for individual championship. The court held that it would not interfere with the rules established under Syndicate minutes but directed the point be considered by the competent University body.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; point raised to be considered by the competent body of the University.

Arya.H Vs Univeristy of Kerala — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.8551 OF 2020(T)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ARYA.H AGED 23 YEARS D/O. SIVAN PILLAI, SREEVARDHANAM, NADUVATHUCHERRY, THEKKUMBHAGAOM, KOLLAM-691584.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 UNIVERSITY OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PALAYAM P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034,

¶11

2 THE VICE CHACELLOR

¶12

UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, PALAYAM P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034,

¶13

3 PRO VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, PALAYAM P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034, AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE STEERING CUM APPELLATE COMMITTEE, KERALA UNIVERSITY YOUTH FESTIVAL.

¶14

4 THE CONVENER STEERING CUM APPELLATE COMMITTEE, KERALA UNIVERSITY YOUTH FESTIVAL, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, PALAYAM P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034,

¶15

5 MALAVIKA S GOPAN 1ST YEAR B.A DEGREE STUDENT, NSS COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, NEERAMANKARA, KARAMANA P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002.

¶16

BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No.8551 OF 2020(T)

¶19

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The grievance of the petitioner, who participated

¶22

in the Kerala University Youth Festival held in March, 2020, is over Rule 21 of the Kerala University Youth Festival Rules 2020, which provides that in case of a tie, the actual percentage of the marks scored by the competitors shall be taken as the basis for determining the individual champion.

¶23

Petitioner participated in 7 events and secured first place in 5 events. The 5^th respondent also got first prize in 5 events each . Both of them got the same points. Rule 21 of the Kerala University Youth Festival Rules provides that there shall be an individual champion among boys and another among girls decided on the basis of the total points scored by the individuals. In case of a tie, the actual percentage of the marks scored by the competitors shall be taken as the basis. It further provides that in case there is a tie even after applying the above norm, the

¶24

WP(C).No.8551 OF 2020(T)

¶25

¶26

championship shall be decided by lot. In the present case both them got the same points.

¶27

Petitioner came out first in Kathakali with 76 marks, Keralanadanam with 86.67 marks, Nangyarkoothu with 77 marks, Monoact with 77.33 marks and Fancy dress with 62.33 marks. At the same time the 5^th respondent, who also got first prize in 5 events, got 86.33 marks in Bharathanatyam, 86.33 marks in Kuchipudi, 85.66 marks in Folk Dance, 84 marks in Mohiniyattom and 86.67 marks in Kerala Nadanam.

¶28

Going by Annexure R1(a), the 5^th respondent got 85.79 marks whereas the petitioner got only 75.86. Therefore the individual championship goes to 5^th respondent as per rule 21. The complaint of the petitioner is that the percentage of marks cannot be the criteria when a student participates in theatre events as well as performance events, as the criteria for awarding marks in these events is entirely different. Petitioner is therefore challenging Rule 21 of Kerala University Youth Festival Rules on the

¶29

WP(C).No.8551 OF 2020(T)

¶30

¶31

ground that the same does not have any nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It is also her case that she did not have an occasion to challenge the same as the contingency where she got 25 points and there occurred a tie arose only in the Youth Festival held in the year 2020. It is stated that even though petitioner had submitted an appeal Ext.P6, it is stated that the same was rejected.

¶32

The University has filed a statement producing Annexure R1(a) in which detailed statement

¶33

of marks secured by petitioner as well as the 5^th respondent are given which shows huge difference in

¶34

the marks secured by the petitioner and the 5^th respondent. It is also stated that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the award of prizes in Ottamthullal was considered by the Steering Cum Appellate Committee on 05.03.2020 and was rejected. According to the respondent as long as the petitioner has not raised any allegation of malafides in awarding marks there is no basis for the allegation raised in

¶35

WP(C).No.8551 OF 2020(T)

¶36

¶37

determining the individual champion. The petitioner had not challenged the modalities involved in choosing the individual champion before participating in the events though the rules were published long back. It is their further contention that in case petitioner wanted a change that should have been brought to the notice of the authorities even before she participated in the Youth Festival. Learned Standing Counsel for the University pointed out that Rule 21 had been in existence since the year 1984 and at the instance of the petitioner the same cannot be varied.

¶38

Having considered the contentions on both sides it is seen from the Youth Festival Rules that the Rules have been issued on the basis of the minutes of the meeting of the Syndicate held on 01.12.1984, 09.11.1999, the decision taken by the Standing Committee of the Syndicate on Student Services held on 26.10.2013, 01.11.2013, decisions taken by the Syndicate on 16.11.2013, 23.11.2015 and subsequent orders of the University issued every year from 2017

¶39

WP(C).No.8551 OF 2020(T)

¶40

¶41

onwards. The rules are issued as per notification dated 20.02.2020 from which it is seen that the minutes of the meeting of the expert committee and a report of the suggestion put forth by the experts were placed before the Standing Committee of the Syndicate on Students Services held on 26.10.2013 and the

¶42

Committee had a detailed discussion on the report; the Committee met on 01.11.2013 again to finalize the various suggestions of the expert committee and Standing Committee of the Syndicate on Students Services recommended to finalize the various changes and additions to the Kerala University Youth Festival Rules. It is also seen that the recommendations made by the Standing Committee of the Syndicate on Students Services are being duly taken note of by the Syndicate before issuing the rules. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that this Court is not expected to interfere with these matters under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶43

However I find that the point raised by the

¶44

WP(C).No.8551 OF 2020(T)

¶45

¶46

petitioner requires consideration by the competent body of the University.

¶47

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶48

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE

¶49

¶50

WP(C).No.8551 OF 2020(T)

¶51

¶52

APPENDIX

¶53

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶54

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE PETITIONER IN MANOACT (FEMALE) ITEM. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE PETITIONER IN KADHAKALI (FEMALE) ITEM. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE PETITIONER IN FANCY DRESS ITEM. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE PETITIONER IN NANGYAR KOOTH ITEM. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE PETITIONER IN KERALA NADANAM (FEMALE) ITEM. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY ON 08.03.2020. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY ON 08.03.2020. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE YOUTH FESTIVAL RULES OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶55

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶56

ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED STATEMENT REVEALING THE CALCULATION OF PERCENTAGE OF MARKS FOR SELECTING THE INDIVIDUAL CHAMPION AMONG GIRLS BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 5TH RESPONDENT.

Arya.H v. Univeristy of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arya.H v. Univeristy 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

Midhun Suresh M. Vs State Bank of India

The Managing Director Vs Kerala University of Health Sciences

Sajesh E.B Vs Kerla State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

The Corporate Manager Vs the Secretary to Government

Jayakumar K Vs a Shajahan,Ias

Dr.G.Pramod, Vs University of Kerala