Dismissed

Niranjana S v. the Director of General Education

Kerala HC5 Jan 2023WA/22/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal filed by a student’s team challenging the district education officers’ decision disqualifying them from the State School Youth Festival. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Appeal Committee, having viewed video recordings, found the performance average and the findings were fact-based, rejecting interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed; pending applications stood closed.

Niranjana S Vs the Director of General Education — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 15TH POUSHA, 1944

¶7

WA NO. 22 OF 2023

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT WP(C) 41767/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/:

¶9

NIRANJANA S

¶10

AGED 13 YEARS, D/O SARITHA KUMARI,
REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, SARITHA KUMARI,

¶11

AGED 37 YEARS, W/O SUNIL KUMAR.M., T.C.72/706 (1),
THEKKE MAMBHAZHA VEEDU, SREE VARAHAM,
MANACAUD (P.O.),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 009.

¶12

BY ADVS.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN

¶13

B.ANUSREE

¶14

 RESHMA UNNIKRISHNAN

¶15

RESPONDENTS:

¶16

1 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION O/O THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN – 695 014.

¶17

2 KALOLSAVAM COMMITTEE CONVENER ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, O/O THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN – 695 014.

¶18

3 DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER O/O THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, STATUE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001.

¶19

4CHAIRMAN
APPEAL COMMITTEE,DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
O/O THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 036.

¶20

K.P. HARISH, SR GP

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.01.2023, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

W.A.No.22 of 2023

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Dated this the 5^th day of January, 2023

¶26

Shaji P. Chaly, J.

¶27

This is an appeal filed by the writ petitioner in W.P. (C)No.41767 of 2022, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.12.2022, whereby, the following reliefs sought for by the appellant were declined.

¶28

“(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Ext.P1 order and allow the appeal filed by the petitioner before the 4^th respondent;

¶29

(ii) that a writ of mandamus or other writ, order or direction be passed, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to permit the petitioner to participate in the state level School Kalolsavam in the event “sanga nritham/group dance” in the “High School” category scheduled on 03.01.2023;

¶30

(iii) Considering the exigencies and necessity for urgent consideration of the grievance voiced in this Writ Petition, production of English translations of documents in vernacular, may kindly be dispensed with for the time being.”

¶31

The appellant and her team participated in the

¶32

cultural event group dance in the high school category from Government Vocational and Higher Secondary School for Girls, Manacaud, Thiruvananthapuram South at the District level.

¶33

W.A.No.22 of 2023

¶34

¶35

The case of the appellant is that the said event took place on 25.11.2022, stage-I of the school auditorium of the Government Higher Secondary School, Cotton Hill, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram. Though the event was scheduled on 24.11.2022 at 3.45 pm, the appellant and her team had to wait till the next day 3.45 am, for their performance. Therefore, according to the appellant since the appellant and her team had to wait for such a long time with their makeup and their dance attire to perform, the entire team was famished. It is also submitted that the team members could not even take food. It was also contended that space of the stage was very less and hence, the team could not use all the properties needed for the dance. It is further submitted that at the time when the appellant and her team performed, a commotion took place in front of the stage at the behest of some of the senior students, which interfered with the performance of the appellant and her team.

¶36

It was also contended that since the appellant and her

¶37

team bagged the first place in the sub-district level with the

¶38

W.A.No.22 of 2023

¶39

¶40

same dance performance, if there was a conducive atmosphere, the team could have performed better. There was every chance for being selected for the State School Youth Festival, was the contention.

¶41

Whatever that be, it is admitted that the State School Youth Festival has already started and the group dance event is scheduled to 3 pm on 06.01.2023.

¶42

Anyhow, being aggrieved by the above issues an appeal was preferred by the appellant before the appeal committee constituted as per the Manual made for the purpose. The appeal committee, after considering the submissions made by the appellant, has passed Exhibit P1 order; translated version of the same reads thus:

¶43

“The details of the complaint of participants

¶44

On 24-11-2022 at 3 P.M. the children were made to sing in the morning for the time of group dance. The children were able to play the stage on 25-11-2022 at 3.45 a.m. because of this the children were very tired. They could not even eat because of makeup.

¶45

The main stage where the group dance took place had not enough space for children to even play. Due to

¶46

W.A.No.22 of 2023

¶47

¶48

space constraints the properties could not be used. The space constraints affected the dance. This dance won 1^st prize in the Sub District. Even their quarters of space in the Sub District stage was not in the district stage for playing group dance.

¶49

At the time of stage of start of the competition due to arguments and conflicts of students of HSS Group Dance, in an out of auditorium affected the performance of children.

¶50

Causation Report

¶51

Watched the HSS Section group dance video, children achieved the average standard in code No.394. They did not qualify for the competition.

¶52

Decision on Appeal

¶53

The appeal is dismissed.”

¶54

Now it is the case of the appellant in the appeal that

¶55

yet another team, which participated in the group dance, was permitted as per Annexure-I order dated 30.12.2022 of a learned Single Judge in the State School Youth Festival. Therefore, according to the appellant, the said team, which was in the 4^th place, when permitted to participate in the State School Youth Festival, it is only appropriate that the appellant and her team is also permitted to participate in the State

¶56

W.A.No.22 of 2023

¶57

¶58

School Youth Festival.

¶59

The learned Single Judge, after considering the contentions advanced by the appellant, has dismissed the writ petition fundamentally holding that Exhibit P1 order passed by the appeal committee demonstrates that the appeal committee had rejected the appeal after viewing the video recording of the team’s performance and, therefore, the court cannot interfere with the order based on the factual assertions in the writ petition.

¶60

We have heard learned counsel Sri.Vishnu Bhuvanendran for the appellant and learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.K.P. Harish for the State Officials and perused the pleadings and the material on record.

¶61

Learned counsel for the appellant has advanced arguments heavily relying upon the factual circumstances deliberated above. It is further pointed out that the appeal committee did not consider the very pertinent point raised by the appellant that due to the commotion that took place in front of the stage, the team could not perform as expected.

¶62

W.A.No.22 of 2023

¶63

¶64

Insofar as the other grounds raised by the appellant with respect to the non-adherence of the time schedule and the insufficiency of the space on the stage, we are of the view that all the participants had the equal level field to perform the group dance. Therefore, the appellant cannot be heard to say that consequent to the said aspects, the appellant and her team could not perform better.

¶65

However, reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the aspect of the commotion that took place in front of the stage while the appellant and her team were performing.

¶66

In our considered view, it is clear from Exhibit P1 impugned order passed by the appeal committee that the appeal committee, consisting of nine persons, have gone through the video recording of the performance of the appellant and her team and has arrived at the conclusion that the performance of the appellant and her team is only average. From the score-sheet produced also, we find that all the participants have secured similar marks like 88, 89, 90, 91,

¶67

W.A.No.22 of 2023

¶68

¶69

86, 83 etc. Therefore, it can be seen that it was a stiff competition and the appellant and her team could secure only the third position, which disqualifies them from participating in the State event.

¶70

Insofar as Annexure-I interim order granted by this court in W.P.(C)No.42971 of 2022 is concerned, admittedly, in the said writ petition, the ground raised was entirely different which has no bearing to the issue raised by the appellant herein.

¶71

Moreover, we will have to confine ourselves to the contentions advanced by the appellant on the basis of Exhibit P1 impugned order passed by the appeal committee. The discussion made above also would make it clear that the entire contentions advanced by the appellant is revolving around various factual circumstances which could only be deciphered by a fact finding body and that is why, the learned, Single Judge has seen that the appeal committee, after verifying the video recording, has arrived its conclusions and settled the facts accordingly.

¶72

W.A.No.22 of 2023

¶73

¶74

We do not think the appellant has produced any material or substantial document before us so as to deviate from the findings rendered by the appeal committee or the learned Single Judge.

¶75

In short, we do not find any jurisdictional error or other legal infirmities justifying our interference in the judgment of the learned Single Judge in an intra court appeal filed under section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.

¶76

Needless to say, appeal fails. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand

¶77

closed.

¶78

Sd/-

¶79

S. Manikumar Chief Justice

¶80

Sd/-

¶81

Shaji P. Chaly Judge

¶82

vpv

¶83

W.A.No.22 of 2023

¶84

¶85

APPENDIX OF WA 22/2023

¶86

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶87

Annexure-ITRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
30.12.2022 IN W.PC NO. 42971/2022.
Annexure-IITRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
THE SCORE SHEET FOR THE EVENT SANGHA
NRITHAM HIGH SCHOOL CATEGORY IN
DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM OBTAINED BY THE
APPELLANT VIA RIGHT TO INFORMATION
ACT.

¶88

//true copy//

¶89

P.A. to Judge

Niranjana S v. the Director of General Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjana S v. the Director of 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

Managing Director, Vs v.S.Sreekumar

State Director, Vs Smt.Emily Joseph

J.Juna Vs the General Manager

E.K. Rajasekharan Vs State Bank of India Asset Recovery Management Branch

Chandra Chooden Nair S Vs State of Kerala

C.H.Sameera, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer