Dismissed

Aneena. B.S. v. Director of General Education

Kerala HC5 Jan 2024WP(C)/373/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Minor students ranked fourth in the Revenue District Kerala School Kalolsavam appealed against the result; their statutory appeal was rejected. The High Court held the Appellate Committee's assessment of the video recording and technical objections was a matter of its expertise which writ jurisdiction could not substitute, and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Aneena. B.S. Vs Director of General Education — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 15TH POUSHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 373 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1ANEENA. B.S.
AGED 17 YEARS
(MINOR), THIRUVATHIRA, PUTHUKKUNNU, POWDIKONAM.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695588, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER
SINDHUMOL.V., AGED 47, D/O R. BHUVANENDRAN NAIR,
THIRUVATHIRA, PUTHUKKUNNU, POWDIKONAM.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695588
2NANDANA SUDHEER
AGED 16 YEARS
(MINOR), C3, GOVERNMENT QUARTERS, NETAJI NAGAR, LAW
COLLEGE JUNCTION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695588, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER INDUKALA.J., AGED 47,
D/O N. SUKUMARAN NAIR, C3, GOVERNMENT QUARTERS, NETAJI
NAGAR, LAW COLLEGE JUNCTION, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695588
3SWATHI.S. ANIL
AGED 17 YEARS
(MINOR), PURAKATTUVILA VEEDU, BAPUJI NAGAR, 484, MEDICAL
COLLEGE POST, PONGUMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695501,
REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SAMITHA ANIL, AGED 41, D/O C.
NATARAJAN, PURAKATTUVILA VEEDU, BAPUJI NAGAR, 484,
MEDICAL COLLEGE POST, PONGUMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695501
4LIBNA.V. AMBILI
AGED 16 YEARS
(MINOR), TC 42/2090, GILGAL HOUSE, RAJEEV GANDHI LANE,
VALLAKADAVU.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695008,
REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, V. AMBILI, AGED 49, D/O K.
VELUKUTTY, TC 42/2090, GILGAL HOUSE, RAJEEV GANDHI LANE,
VALLAKADAVU.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695008
5BHADRA.L.M.
AGED 16 YEARS
(MINOR), PUTHUVEL PUTHEN VEEDU, JAIPURAM,
POWDIKONAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695588, REPRESENTED
BY HER MOTHER LEKHA.P., AGED 42, D/O S. BHUVANACHANDRAN
NAIR, PUTHUVEL PUTHEN VEEDU, JAIPURAM, POWDIKONAM.P.O.,

¶8

WP(C) NO. 373 OF 2024

¶9

¶10

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695588
6ANAGHA.M.R.
AGED 17 YEARS
(MINOR), SREEPADAM, KOPPAM, PIRAPPANCODE.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695607, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER
MANJU.K., AGED 37, D/O KUMARASWAMI PILLAI, SREEPADAM,
KOPPAM, PIRAPPANCODE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695607
7YUVASRI.A.
AGED 16 YEARS
(MINOR), TC- 45/1414 (2), NAGAMMAYYA STREET,
KARAMANA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695002, REPRESENTED
BY HER MOTHER GOMATHI.A., AGED 41, D/O RAJESHWARI, TC-
45/1414 (2), NAGAMMAYYA STREET, KARAMANA.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002
8HALEMA SHABEER
AGED 16 YEARS
(MINOR), TC 63/2495, THENGUVILA VEEDU, AMBALATHARA,
POONTHURA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695026, REPRESENTED
BY HER MOTHER ASOORA BEEVI, AGED 37, D/O BATHISHA BEEVI,
TC 63/2495, THENGUVILA VEEDU, AMBALATHARA,
POONTHURA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695026
9GAADHA.M. GOPAKUMAR
AGED 17 YEARS
(MINOR), BINDHU MANDIRAM, SANNAGAR, VENKODE.P.O.,
VATTAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695028, REPRESENTED BY
HER FATHER GOPAKUMAR.D., AGED 50, S/O DIVAKARAN NAIR.N.,
BINDHU MANDIRAM, SANNAGAR, VENKODE.P.O., VATTAPPARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695028
10NEHA.S.
AGED 16 YEARS
(MINOR), T.C. 32/1146 (2), SOUPARNIKA, NEAR ALL SAINT'S
COLLEGE JUNCTION, BEACH.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695007, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SOUMYA.G., AGED 38, D/O
S. GIRIJA, T.C. 32/1146 (2), SOUPARNIKA, NEAR ALL SAINT'S
COLLEGE JUNCTION, BEACH.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695007
BY ADV K.RAJESH KANNAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
O/O THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY,

¶13

WP(C) NO. 373 OF 2024

¶14

3

¶15

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

¶16

2 KALOLSAVAM COMMITTEE CONVENOR/ ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION O/O THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

¶17

3 CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE/ DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION O/O THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION. KANNUR, PIN - 670002

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶19

05.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C) NO. 373 OF 2024

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The petitioner and her team say that they

¶24

participated in the Revenue District Kerala School
Kalolsavam 2023-24 in a particular event, but was

¶25

adjudged only rank No.4. They affirm that, as per
the Manual applicable to the event in question, only

¶26

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.P1
order. The petitioner and her team assert that
Ext.P1 is illegal and unlawful because, it cites no

¶27

reason for the rejection of their appeal.

¶28

2. In response to the afore submissions of

¶29

Sri.K.Rajesh Kannan – learned counsel for the
petitioner,Smt.VidyaKuriakose –learned

¶30

Government Pleader, submitted that Ext.P1 contains

¶31

WP(C) NO. 373 OF 2024

¶32

¶33

specific reasons why the appeal of the petitioner
and her team were found to be undeserving; and that
this is manifest from its contents. She 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

¶34

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.

¶35

3. I have examined Ext.P1 and I must say that

¶36

there is force in the afore submissions of

¶37

Smt.Vidya Kuriakose.

¶38

4. This is because, Ext.P1 luculently records

¶39

that the technical objections raised by the

¶40

petitioner and her team for their performance to be
affected at the Revenue District Kerala School

¶41

WP(C) NO. 373 OF 2024

¶42

¶43

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.

¶44

In the afore circumstances, this writ petition
is dismissed.

¶45

 Sd/-

¶46

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

SAS

¶49

WP(C) NO. 373 OF 2024

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 373/2024

¶52

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:

¶53

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF ORDER C(4)/8910/2023/D.D.E DATED
27.12.2023 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR
Y(2)/1413259/2023/D.G.E DATED 10.10.2023
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Aneena. B.S. v. Director of General Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Aneena. B.S. v. Director of General Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abina Johnson Vs Director of General Education

Anjana Mohan Vs State of Kerala

Aswini Ajay.S. Vs Deputy Director of General Education, Thiruvananthapuram

Sunil Vs the District Level Authorization Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs, Kozhikode

Uthara Rajeevan (Minor) Rep. by Her Father C.K. Rajeevan Vs State of Kerala

Nandana Bj, (Minor) Vs the State of Kerala