Dismissed

Shinsiya S v. Deputy Director of Education

Kerala HC4 Jan 2023WP(C)/206/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged her rejection in an appeal against her performance in a school dance competition. While contending the committee lacked expert knowledge, the court found the committee properly constituted in a prior order and dismissed the petition, upholding the affirmation of the expert judges' decision.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed.

Shinsiya S Vs Deputy Director of Education — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 14TH POUSHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 206 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHINSIYA S AGED 16 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER SHAHUL HAMEED K., AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. KASIM RAWTHER, KADAMKODE (H), MANJALUR P.O., PALAKKAD ., PIN - 678502

¶8

BY ADVS. P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH RENOY VINCENT HELEN P.A. ARUN ROY SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION CIVIL STATION, KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001

¶11

2 NODAL OFFICER PALAKKAD REVENUE DISTRICT KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2022-23, LADY SANKARAN NAIR GIRLS HSS, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679102

¶12

3 GENERAL CONVENER PALAKKAD REVENUE DISTRICT KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2022-23, LADY SANKARAN NAIR GIRLS HSS, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679102

¶13

4 APPEAL COMMITTEE PALAKKAD REVENUE DISTRICT KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2022-23, LADY SANKARAN NAIR GIRLS HSS, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679102

¶14

5 GENERAL CONVENOR 61ST KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOTSAVAM 2022-2023, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673004

OTHER PRESENT:

W.P.(C). 206/2023

GP P.S. APPU

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C). 206/2023

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 4^th day of January, 2023

¶24

The petitioner's team had participated for the item 'Oppana (Girls) (HSS)(General) in the Palakkad Revenue District School Kalolsavam and secured 4^th place with A Grade. Dissatisfied with the result, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal having been rejected by Ext. P1 order, the petitioner along with certain other appellants approached this Court alleging that the Appeal Committee is not constituted in terms of the Kalolsavam Manual and the appellate orders were passed without hearing the appellants. This Court found that four of the appeals, the orders of which were under challenge, were decided without hearing the appellants. Hence, the writ petition was disposed of by Ext. P2 judgment directing the Appeal Committee to hear those appeals and take fresh decision after viewing the video

¶25

W.P.(C). 206/2023

¶26

¶27

recording of the performance. The appeal filed by the petitioner is one among the four appeals that was directed to be reconsidered. In purported compliance of the direction in Ext. P1, the Appeal Committee heard the petitioner and passed Ext. P3 order. Aggrieved, the petitioner has once again approached this Court.

¶28

Learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Appeal Committee did not consist of experts having in-depth knowledge in Oppana and therefore, the Committee was incompetent to assess the performance.

¶29

Learned Government Pleader contended that the petitioner cannot challenge the competency of the appeal committee members since this Court had already held in Ext.P1 that the Appeal Committee is properly constituted.

¶30

I find the contention of the Government Pleader to be well founded. In Ext.P1 judgment this Court has held the Appeal Committee to have been properly

¶31

W.P.(C). 206/2023

¶32

¶33

constituted after perusing the list of expert members in the Committee. There is no other serious contention, except the assertion that the petitioner's team had performed exceedingly well and a request to permit the team to participate in the State Youth Festival. A panel of expert judges having assessed the team's performance and the Appeal Committee having affirmed that decision, I find no reason to substitute those decisions based on the petitioner's assertions.

¶34

In the result the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

W.P.(C). 206/2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 206/2023

¶42

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶43

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 DATED 12.12.2022 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 39908/2022 DATED 22.12.2022 Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 DATED 29.12.2022

Shinsiya S v. Deputy Director of Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shinsiya S v. Deputy Director of 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

Gireesh Gangadharan Vs Union of India

Resmi Krishna.R.S. Vs Director of General Education

Dr.Jayapradeep, Vs the State of Kerala

Kallettumkara Service Co-Operative Bank Limited NO.141 Vs State of Kerala

Jagathpriya.P (Minor) Vs State of Kerala

Jessy Dennis Vs State of Kerala