Judgment · High Court

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.

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

#4. This is because, Ext.P1 luculently 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 WP(C) NO. 12 OF 2024 -6- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDING NO. C2/3206/2023/ DTD.03.12.2023 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT