ABINA JOHNSON v. DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION

ABINA JOHNSON AGED 15 YEARS, D/O JOHNSON, PAZHAYIDATHU HOUSE, ELLUMANNAM P.O, ELLUMANNAM, EDAVAKA WAYANAD. REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, SHELLY, AGED 46 YEARS, PAZHAYIDATHU HOUSE, ELLUMANNAM P.O, ELLUMANNAM, EDAVAKA WAYANAD – 670645. BY ADV. SRI.JERIN C. JOHNY RESPONDENTS: 1 2 3 4 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION O/O THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695014 KALOLSAVAM COMMITTEE CONVENER ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, O/O THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER O/O THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, MADATHUMPADI, KALPETTA, WAYANAD, PIN - 673122 CHAIRMAN APPEAL COMMITTEE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, O/O THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION. CIVIL STATION, MADATHUMPADI, KALPETTA, WAYANAD, PIN - 673122 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 8 of 2024 : 2 : JUDGMENT The petitioner says that her team participated in the Revenue District Kerala School Kalolsavam 2023-24 in a particular event, but was adjudged only rank No.2. 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.2 order. The petitioner asserts that Ext.2 is illegal and unlawful because, it cites no reason for the rejection of her appeal.

#2. In response to the afore submissions of Sri. Jerin C.Johny – learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Sunil Kumar Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader, submitted that Ext.2 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 W.P.(C).No. 8 of 2024 : 3 : under writ jurisdiction.

#3. I have examined Ext.2 and I must say that there is force in the afore submissions of Sri. Sunil Kumar Kuriakose.

#4. This is because, Ext.2 luculently records that the technical objections raised by the petitioner for the performance of her team to be effected 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. In the afore circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE W.P.(C).No. 8 of 2024 : 4 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit 2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON THE COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 30.11.2023. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITIONER'S APPEAL BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 08.12.2023. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.