Allowed

The Deputy Director of Education v. Arathi Unni

Kerala HC15 Mar 2023WP(C)/1955/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed an order by the Upa Lok Ayukta directing a student's participation in a Kerala School Kalolsavam, following a Division Bench precedent.

What did the court decide?

Exhibit-P3 order directed by the Upa Lok Ayukta was set aside; writ petition allowed.

What the court decided

The Deputy Director of Education Vs Arathi Unni — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶7

WP(C) NO. 1955 OF 2016

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AGED 41 YEARS, GENERAL CONVENER AND CHAIRMAN, APPELLATE COMMITTEE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM, QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE

¶10

2 THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS GENERAL CONVENER KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAMN 15-16, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶11

BY SRI.TEKCHAND.V, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

ARATHI UNNI, KRISHNA KRIPA, NEAR JEEVAN BEEMA NAGAR, KARAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE (REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN SMT. CHANDRA UNNIKRISHNAN)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 1955 OF 2016

¶16

:: 2 ::

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 15^th day of March, 2023

¶19

S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.

¶20

Instant writ petition has been filed challenging ExhibitP3 order issued by the Upa Lok Ayukta, directing the

¶21

petitioners herein, to permit the respondent herein, to participate in ‘Mohiniyattam’ in State Level competition of Kerala School Kalolsavam scheduled to be held at Thiruvananthapuram from 19.1.2016 to 25.1.2016.

¶22

According to the petitioners, Lok Ayukta/Upa Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of this nature, as the averments in the complaint do not attract the allegation or grievance as enunciated in the definition given in the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999.

¶23

Reliefs sought for in this writ petition are as follows:

¶24

i)issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P3 order issued by the Hon’ble Lok Ayukta.

¶25

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Upa Lok Ayukta in proceedings with the Complaint No.132/2016.

¶26

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the Hon’ble Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to interfere into the

¶27

WP(C) NO. 1955 OF 2016

¶28

:: 3 ::

¶29

decision taken by the Appeal Committee constituted under the Kerala State Kalolsavam.

¶30

Record of proceedings shows that while entertaining

¶31

the writ petition, by order dated 18^th January, 2016 in W.P.© No.1955 of 2016, a learned Single Judge of this court ordered as under:

¶32

“Urgent notice by speed post to respondent.

¶33

There shall be an interim order as prayed for. However, if the student referred in Ext.P3 has secured 1^st rank in Kozhikode District School Kalolsavam, certainly, the authorities shall permit the student in the Kerala State School Kalolsavam.”

¶34

Reliance is also placed on the decision of a Hon’ble Division Bench of this court in Additional Director of Public Instructions DPI Office, Thiruvananthapuram and others v. Anagha K and others reported in 2022 (5) KHC 473 . wherein it is held as under:-

¶35

“17. After considering the averments and material on record, and in particular, the direction issued by the Lok Ayukta regarding participation of students in a programme, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W. P. (C) No. 18950 of 2018 dated 08.06.2018, ordered thus:-

¶36

“7. We do not find any merit in the contentions. Incidentally, it is relevant to note that this Court has come across various similar orders being passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta,

¶37

WP(C) NO. 1955 OF 2016

¶38

:: 4 ::

¶39

Human Rights Commission, Civil Courts and such other bodies, as a matter of course, granting permission to the lost contestants to participate in the youth festivals at higher levels and on the strength of such orders, they, who otherwise are not qualified for having failed to secure the 'first place' to have the eligibility to participate in the next level of participation secure undue benefit. The adverse circumstances resulted by virtue of such course have been highlighted by this Court on many an occasion, including as to the unsettling of the equilibrium in the time schedule fixed for conducting the festival.

¶40

The students in favour of whom such interim orders are passed may be persons, as in the instant case, the third prize winner or those who occupy much lower level. The student who got the second place or such other higher position as the case may be, if belongs to poor strata of the society, he will not be in a position to challenge the verdict passed at the feeder level and might be resting at home cursing his fate. In other words, the students who are awarded/rated with the 'second' or such other higher position are made to stay at home, the contestants at still lower level are being permitted to participate in the event. This will perpetuate injustice, compromising with the better talent. The interim orders being passed under such circumstances as a matter of course, are not at all in the best interest of the deserving lot, catering to the interested persons, who can afford to bear the cost of litigation, which is to be taken serious note of.

¶41

The interim orders passed by such authorities/quasi judicial bodies still virtually provide for increasing the number of participants in a given event or programme, where the number of permissible participants stands restricted by the organizers. It is to be noted, as part of illustration, the participants in a specific event may be '14' of '16', having secured the first

¶42

WP(C) NO. 1955 OF 2016

¶43

:: 5 ::

¶44

position at the district level [representing the different districts/ revenue/ educational districts] and the time schedule will be fixed in such a manner so as to complete the event to be followed by such other events to be conducted on the same stage, on the very same day. If the students occupying only lower position in the feeder level, are also permitted to participate as a matter of course [by Lok Ayukta or such other forum], there is a chance of increase in the total number of participants even beyond the logical limits. As a natural consequence, the time schedule will get unsettled and the event may go unending, even to be carried to the next day, adversely affecting the performance of other children who are waiting in the queue [who are otherwise qualified by virtue of their own merits, having secured the first position at feeder level] and also causing hardships to the members in the judging panel. This cycle will continue, resulting in undue delay in commencement and completion of the program in respect of the events scheduled on the same date, which has been deprecated by this Court on many an occasion.

¶45

The learned Government Pleader submits that the organizers are finding it extremely difficult to have the events conducted as per the time schedule, because of such orders and in the said circumstance, the State/Department has already approached this Court filing a Writ Petition projecting the grievance which is pending consideration. We do not intend to express anything further in this regard, as the issue is pending. We have referred to all these aspects only in the given context, to assert that the petitioner, after getting interim order from the Upa Lok Ayukta to participate in the event, was not at all justified in not remitting the process charges on time and in keeping himself away from the proceedings pending before the Upa Lok Ayukta. As mentioned already, the conduct displayed by the petitioner

¶46

WP(C) NO. 1955 OF 2016

¶47

:: 6 ::

¶48

stands deprecated by the Lok Ayukta itself and it was accordingly, that the I.A.s filed have been dismissed as per Ext. P4, which does not call for any interference.

¶49

The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly.”

¶50

Section 7 of the Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, deals with matters which may be investigated by the Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta. Aspect as to whether a complaint involves a grievance or an allegation is made in respect of such actions or such action can be or would have been in the opinion of the Upa Lok Ayukta, the subject of a grievance or an allegation, can be entertained by the Lok Ayukta, only after examining the facts involved, supporting documents, or in other words, in our opinion, on case to case basis and no law can be laid down by this Court that the Lok Ayukta or the Upa Lok Ayukta, has no powers to entertain any complaint involving grievance of an allegation concerning the assessment of performance of participants in respect of any festival or programme organized at District / State Level.

¶51

However, as a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has already taken note of various similar orders passed by the authorities under various Acts and made observations, we are of the view that the authorities under the Acts, namely Upa Lok Ayukta, Human Rights Commission, Juvenile Justice Board, Civil Courts etc., should take note of the observations and directions issued in the judgment dated 08.06.2018 in W. P. (C) No. 18950 of 2018 while considering the complaints or entertaining any complaint regarding grievance or allegation in respect of the participation of students in cultural or other events at District / State Level, subject matter before the above referred authorities.”

¶52

Facts of the instant case are more or less similar,

¶53

and therefore, we have no hesitation to follow the decision

¶54

WP(C) NO. 1955 OF 2016

¶55

:: 7 ::

¶56

in Additional Director of Public Instructions’ case, (cited supra).

¶57

Giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, and following the decision cited above, we are inclined to interfere with Exhibit-P3 impugned order dated 14.1.2016 in Complaint No.132/2016 of the Upa Lok Ayukta. Accordingly, Exhibit-P3 is set aside.

¶58

Writ petition is allowed.

¶59

sd/S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

¶60

sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶61

jesxxxx

¶62

WP(C) NO. 1955 OF 2016

¶63

:: 8 ::