A student team ranked fifth in the Revenue District School Kalolsavam challenged the rejection of their statutory appeal against the results, alleging it was unreasoned. The court found Ext.P3 contained reasons and held it could not substitute its view for the appellate committee's expert assessment of video evidence.
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
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 15TH POUSHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 371 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
NANDANA BJ, (MINOR)
AGED 14 YEARS
D/O JIJI S, SOORYA NANDA, RAMESWARAM, NEYYATTINKARA P.O,
PIN - 695 121 REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER JIJI S, AGED 38,
SOORYA NANDA, RAMESWARAM, NEYYATTINKARA P.O,, PIN -
695121
BY ADV E.NARAYANAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 6950012THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE APPEAL COMMITTEE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM, 2023, OFFICE OF THE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PADMAVILASOM ROAD, FORT
P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
3 CONVENER, PROGRAMME COMMITTEE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM, 2023, GBHSS, ATTINGAL,, PIN - 6951014 GOURI SAMBHU STANDARD 10, GOVERNMENT GIRLS HSS, COTTON HILL, VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 371 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner and her team say that they
participated in the Revenue District Kerala School
Kalolsavam 2023-24 in a particular event, but was
adjudged only rank No.5. They affirm 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 they preferred a statutory appeal
against the result before the competent Appellate
Authority, which, however, has culminated in Ext.P3
order. The petitioner and her team assert that
Ext.P3 is illegal and unlawful because, it cites no
reason for the rejection of their appeal.
2. In response to the afore submissions of
Sri.Edamana Narayanan – learned counsel for the
petitioner,Smt.VidyaKuriakose –learned
Government Pleader, submitted that Ext.P3 contains
WP(C) NO. 371 OF 2024
3
specific reasons why the appeal of the petitioner
and her team were 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.
3. I have examined Ext.P3 and I must say that
there is force in the afore submissions of
Smt.Vidya Kuriakose.
4. This is because, Ext.P1 luculently records
that the technical objections raised by the
petitioner and her team for their performance to be
affected at the Revenue District Kerala School
WP(C) NO. 371 OF 2024
4
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 her team 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 and her team are not tenable, it
would not be possible to substitute their wisdom,
with that of this Court.
In the afore circumstances, this writ petition
is dismissed.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
SAS
WP(C) NO. 371 OF 2024
5
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 371/2024
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE
MANUAL CALLED KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVA MANUAL
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT PUBLISHED IN THE
WEBSITE WITH RESPECT TO SANGHANRUTHAM - HSS
GENERAL
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27-12-23 BEARING
NUMBER C(4)/ 8910/2023/DDE
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 10-10-23
BEARING NUMBER Y(2)/1413259/2023/DGE PASSED BY
THE OFFICE OF THE GENERAL EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ court can interfere with a statutory appeal committee's rejection of objections to School Kalolsavam results based on assessment of video recordings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Devna Sumesh v. State of KeralaRelied on
[2022 KHC OnLine 8081]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nandana BJ
The State of Kerala, Department of General Education
Deputy Director of Education
Convener, Programme Committee, Thiruvananthapuram Revenue District School Kalolsavam 2023
Gouri Sambhu
Devan Ramachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court