Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Outcome
Dismissed
In the afore circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. 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…
Judgment
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. 42944 OF 2023 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner 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.
In response to the afore submissions of Sri. George Mathew – 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 WP(C) NO. 42944 OF 2023 3 attenuated, since it would involve assessment of factual and other relevant criteria, which cannot be done while acting under writ jurisdiction.
I have examined Ext.P1 and I must say that there is force in the afore submissions of Sri. Sunil Kumar Kuriakose.
Operative part
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. In the afore circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE WP(C) NO. 42944 OF 2023 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42944/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDING NO. C2/3206/2023 DTD. 03.12.2023 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the afore circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.