Dismissed

Gokul.B.M v. Director of General Education

Kerala HC3 Jan 2024WP(C)/46/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an appellate order rejecting his performance objections in a school competition as illogical and lacking reasons. The Court noted the order recorded non-tenable objections based on video review. Relying on precedent, the Court held that factual assessment lies with the expert committee, severely attenuating writ jurisdiction, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition is dismissed.

Gokul.B.M 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 13TH POUSHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 46 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

GOKUL.B.M AGED 18 YEARS, S/O BAIJU.S, RESIDING AT PADMASREE HOUSE, VILLAMCODE, THEKKINKARA VEEDU, PAMKODE, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE P.O, NEYYATINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695019 BY ADVS. B.ANANTHU V.K.SANDHYA

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION O/O THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014 2 KALOLSAVAM COMMITTEE CONVENOR ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, O/O THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014 3 DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER O/O THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, GPO LN, NEAR TESRO, STATUE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001 4 CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, O/O THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PADMAVILASOM ROAD, FORT P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - GP

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

W.P.(C).No. 46 of 2024

¶12

: 2 :

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

The petiti oner says that he participated in the Revenue District Kerala School Kalolsavam 2023-24 in a particular event, but was adjudged only rank No.2. He 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 he 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 his appeal.

¶15

2. In response to the afore submissions of Sri.B.Ananthu – learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose – 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

¶16

W.P.(C).No. 46 of 2024

¶17

: 3 :

¶18

involve assessment of factual and other relevant criteria, which cannot be done while acting under writ jurisdiction.

¶19

3. I have examined Ext.P1 and I must say that there is force in the afore submissions of Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose.

¶20

4. This is because, Ext.P1 luculently records that the technical objections raised by the petitioner for his performance to be affected 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 to substitute their wisdom, with that of this Court.

¶21

In the afore circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶24

anm

¶25

W.P.(C).No. 46 of 2024

¶26

: 4 :

¶27

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 46/2024

¶28

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL ORDER NO: C(4)/8910/2023/D.D.E DATED 27/12/2023

¶29

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.

Gokul.B.M v. Director of General Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gokul.B.M v. Director of General Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Faisal Pakkikadath Vs Axis Bank

Afnan Latheef Vs Abdul Latheef

George Sebastian Vs Union of India

Gouri Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Ajon Vinod Vs State of Kerala

Harinandan.B.S Vs State of Kerala