A student ranked second with A Grade in the district School Kalolsavam challenged the appellate order rejecting her appeal. The court held that assessment of performance and video evidence lies within the appellate committee's expertise and dismissed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 13TH POUSHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 12 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
GOURI SURESH, AGED 13 YEARS,
D/O. SURESH BABU G, (MINOR) STD. VIII,
DV NSS HS SCHOOL, POOVATTUR,
RESIDING AT CHITHRAVEENA, MYLOM P.O.,
KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
REP. BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN,
SOUMYA B. NAIR, W/O. SURESH BABU G.,
RESIDING AT CHITHRAVEENA,
MYLOM P.O., KOTTARAKARA,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691560.
BY ADVS.
GEORGE MATHEW
GEORGE K.V.
BIJILY JOSEPH
SUNIL KUMAR A.G
MATHEW K.T.
ELSA DENNY PINDIS
MEDHA B.S.
STEPHY K REGI
RESPONDENTS:
1STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.
2ORGANIZING COMMITTEE,
KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2023 -2024,
REP. BY ITS GENERAL CO-ORDINATOR/
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.
3THE CHAIRMAN,
APPEAL COMMITTEE FOR KERALA SCHOOL KALOTHSAVAM 2023-
2024/DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DDE OFFICE,
THEVALLYP.O.,KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691009.
4 THE GENERAL CONVENOR - PROGRAMME COMMITTEE/ DEPUTYWP(C) NO. 12 OF 2024
-2-
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, DDE OFFICE, THEVALLY
POST, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691009.
BY ADV.SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 12 OF 2024
-3-
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that she participated in
the Revenue District Kerala School Kalolsavam
2023-24 in a particular event but was adjudged
to only rank No.2 with A Grade. She affirms
that, as per the Manual applicable to the event
in question, only the first rank holder would
obtain the opportunity of moving to the next
level of competition, namely the Kerala State
School Kalolsavam 2023-24; and therefore, that
she preferred a statutory appeal against the
result before the competent Appellate Authority,
which, however, has culminated in Ext.P1 order.
The petitioner asserts that Ext.P1 is illegal
and unlawful because, it cites no reason for the
rejection of her appeal.
2. In response to the afore submissions of
Sri.George Mathew Karamayil – learned counsel
for the petitioner, Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose –
WP(C) NO. 12 OF 2024
-4-
learned Government Pleader, submitted that
Ext.P1 contains specific reasons why the appeal
of the petitioner was found to be undeserving;
and that this is manifest from its contents. He
added that, in any event, it has now been well
established, through the judgment of this Court
in Devna Sumesh v. State of Kerala [2022 KHC
OnLine 8081], that once the statutory appeal is
rejected, the competence of this Court to act
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
is severely attenuated, since it would involve
assessment of factual and other relevant
criteria, which cannot be done while acting
under writ jurisdiction.
that there is force in the afore submissions of
Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose.
records that the technical objections raised by
WP(C) NO. 12 OF 2024
-5-
the petitioner against her performance at the
Revenue District Kerala School Kalolsavam were
found not tenable, or not discernible from the
video recording. The statutory Appellate
Committee could have done nothing more than to
have heard the petitioner and to have examined
the video recording; and it is in their
expertise and wisdom to assess it in the manner
as is legally appropriate. When the Committee
takes the view that the objections raised by the
petitioner are not tenable, it would not be
possible for this Court to substitute their
wisdom, with that of this Court.
In the afore circumstances, this writ
petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
akv
WP(C) NO. 12 OF 2024
-6-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDING NO.
C2/3206/2023/ DTD.03.12.2023 ISSUED BY
3RD RESPONDENT
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ court under Article 226 can interfere with the rejection of a statutory appeal against the result of the Kerala School Kalolsavam district-level competition.
Whether Ext.P1 appellate order was unsustainable for lack of reasons.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Devna Sumesh v. State of KeralaRelied on
[2022 KHC OnLine 8081]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gouri Suresh
State of Kerala, rep. by its Secretary, General Education Department
Organizing Committee, Kerala School Kalolsavam 2023-2024
The Chairman, Appeal Committee for Kerala School Kalothsavam 2023-2024/Deputy Director, DDE Office, Kollam
The General Convenor - Programme Committee/Deputy Director of Education, DDE Office, Kollam
Devan Ramachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court