Judgment · High Court

rank No.3. She affirm 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.P2 order. The petitioner asserts that Ext.P2 is illegal and unlawful because, it cites no reason for the rejection of her appeal.

In response to the afore submissions of Sri.K.Rajesh Kannan – learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Vidya Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader, submitted that Ext.P2 contains WP(C) NO. 44007 OF 2023 3 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.

I have examined Ext.P2 and I must say that there is force in the afore submissions of Smt. Vidya Kuriakose.

This is because, Ext.P2 luculently records that the technical objections raised by the petitioner for her performance to be affected at the Revenue District Kerala School Kalolsavam, were found not tenable, or not discernible from the WP(C) NO. 44007 OF 2023 4 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 is 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/- SAS DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE WP(C) NO. 44007 OF 2023 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 44007/2023 PETITIONER’s EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RESULTS OF SOME OF THE ITEMS SHOWING THE NAME OF THE EVENT, THE POSITION SECURED BY THE STUDENTS AND THEIR DANCE MASTER TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.F1/7258/2023 DATED 12.12.2023 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT