Dismissed

Smitha Menon P.I v. the Director, General Education

Kerala HC10 Nov 2021WA/259/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the underlying Writ Petition challenging the Kerala Teacher Eligibility Test results, directing the respondents to reconsider two disputed questions. The Writ Appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn, and the impugned Single Judge judgment was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Permitted withdrawal of Writ Petition with liberty to make representation to respondents within two weeks; respondents to decide within two months after hearing.

Smitha Menon P.I Vs the Director, General Education — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶7

WA NO. 259 OF 2021

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21949/2020 OF HIGH

¶9

COURT OF KERALA

¶10

APPELLANT/S:

¶11

SMITHA MENON P.I AGED 40 YEARS W/O. ANIKUTTAN, KESAVEEYEM, MAYITHARA P.O, CHERTHALA SOUTH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 539 BY ADV P.P.BIJU

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 THE DIRECTOR, GENERAL EDUCATION JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

¶14

2 THE COMMISSIONER,

¶15

OFFICE OF EXAMINATION COMMISSIONER, PAREEKSHA BHAVAN, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 012.

¶16

3 THE SECRETARY,

¶17

OFFICE OF THE EXAMINATION COMMISSIONER, PAREEKSHA BHAVAN, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 012

¶18

BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER A J VARGHESE

¶19

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.A. NO. 259 of 2021

-2-

JUDGMENT

Mohammed Nias,J.

The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment in W.P. (Civil) No. 21949/2020 dated 17-11-2020. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner submitted that she had attended the Kerala Teacher Eligibility Test February 2020 and alleged that the answer key published by the respondent is not correct as the same is beset with errors, and sought for re-evaluation of the petitioner's answer paper based on the objections submitted by her to the questions and also to consider Ext. P13 representation filed in that regard.

¶25

By the impugned judgment the learned single Judge found against the contentions of the writ petitioner that the answer key was wrong and the petitioner's suggestion of the correct answers could not be accepted and held that the errors crept in the answer key were corrected and a revised answer key published. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. A review petition filed also met with the same fate.

¶26

W.A. NO. 259 of 2021

¶27

-3-

¶28

In the appeal before us, the learned counsel for the

¶29

appellant re-iterated the contention that the answers of two questions namely question No. 72 of Category No. I Part No. I of Environmental Studies and question No. 77 were wrong that led to the appellant being deprived of two marks which resulted in her not qualifying the examination. The learned counsel submits that at any rate the two questions were vague and ambiguous. The learned counsel further submits that there should be a reconsideration of the issue at the hands of the respondents including for reduction of the cut off mark for qualifying the examination. To enable this, the learned counsel made a request to withdraw the Writ Petition so as to approach the respondents with a representation claiming appropriate reliefs including that for reduction of the cut off marks.

¶30

On considering the said request, we find that the same is reasonable. We also find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was room for doubt and ambiguity with respect to the questions mentioned above and therefore, the issue can be best considered by the respondents

¶31

W.A. NO. 259 of 2021

¶32

and not by this Court. Accordingly, we permit the the appellant to withdraw the Writ Petition itself with liberty to make representation with appropriate reliefs within a period of two weeks from today. In such an event, the respondents will consider the said representation of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the same and take a decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

¶33

In the result, the Writ Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. As a consequence, the judgment impugned is set aside. The Writ Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn subject to the above direction.

¶34

Sd/-A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, Judge

¶35

Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P , Judge

¶36

ani/15-11/

¶37

/true copy/

¶38

P.S. To Judge

Smitha Menon P.I v. the Director, General Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smitha Menon P.I v. the Director, General Education

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

Fousia Rabins Vs Union of India

Self-Financing Teacher Education Management Association Vs *Correction( State of Kerala

B.Ed Colleges Managers Association Vs State of Kerala

Smitha Menon P.I. Vs the Director

State of Kerala Vs Bipin Pavithran v.

State of Kerala Vs Aparna Mohan