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 66. I am afraid that I cannot heed to this argument because it is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client did not raise her objection in the Memorandum of Appeal or before the Appellate Committee. In the afore circumstances, this…
Judgment
SRI. SUNIL K.KURIAKOSE, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 44332/23 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner says that she 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.P1 order. The petitioner asserts that Ext.P1 is illegal and unlawful because, it cites no reason for the rejection of her appeal.
In response to the afore submissions of Sri.M.Jayakrishnan Vazhoor – 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 WPC 44332/23 3 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.P1 and I must say that there is force in the afore submissions of Sri. Sunil Kumar Kuriakose.
This is because, Ext.P1 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 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.
After I dictated this part of judgment, Sri.M.Jayakrishnan WPC 44332/23 4 – learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that, in paragraph 5 of the Writ Petition, his client has also taken a ground that she could not perform well because she was menstruating at the relevant time.
Operative part
I am afraid that I cannot heed to this argument because it is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client did not raise her objection in the Memorandum of Appeal or before the Appellate Committee. In the afore circumstances, this Writ Petition is dismissed. RR Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE WPC 44332/23 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 44332/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DDEPTA/3255/2023-73 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 16.12.2023
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.