Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 11644 Ker
Judgement Date : 16 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 37936 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
VYSHNAVI K NAIR
AGED 15 YEARS
D/O. KANNANKUTTY , KANJIRAMYALIL HOUSE,THANIKUDAM,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN- 680028, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER
AND GUARDIAN KANNANKUTTY, AGED 49 YEARS, KANJIRAMYALIL
HOUSE, THANIKNDAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680028
BY ADV MOHAMMED SHAFI.K
RESPONDENTS:
1 CONFEDERATION OF KERALA SAHODAYA COMPLEXES
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY JOJI PAUL PRINCIPAL,
BENCHMARKS INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL TIRUR P.O, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT ., PIN - 676101
2 DR.DEEPA CHANDRAN
CONVENOR, CBSE STATE KALOTSAV 2023 WORKINGA AS PRINCIPAL
OF SREE SARADA VLDHYALA, KALADY (P.0.), ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT., PIN - 683574
3 CONVENOR
CBSE DISTRICT KALOTSAV 2023 THRISSUR DISTRICT SAHODAYA
ANSAR ENGLISH SCHOOL, PERUMBILAVU THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN
- 680519
4 PRESIDENT,
APPEAL COMMITTEE, THRISSUR DISTRICT SAHODAYA KATOTSAV
2023 THRISSUR SAHODAY COMPLEX ANSAR PUBLIC SCHOOL,
PEMUMBILAVU P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680519
SRI M A AHAMED SAHEER-SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 37936 OF 2023
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a young girl of 15 years,
asserts that she performed very well in the
"Bharathanatyam" and "Mohiniyatam", in Category-
III (Girls) in the CBSE Thrissur District
Sahodaya Kalotsav, at the High School level; but
has been still found to be unqualified to go to
the next level.
2. The petitioner says that she, therefore,
preferred a statutory Appeal before the Appellate
Committee; but which Authority has now issued
Ext.P3 merely saying that the report they have
obtained from the original Judging Panel
discloses that their judgment was proper and
therefore, that it has been rejected. She pleads
that Ext.P3 be set aside and she be given an
opportunity to participate in the State School
Kalotsav, to commence on 24.11.2023. WP(C) NO. 37936 OF 2023
3. Sri.M.A.Ahammad Saheer - learned counsel
appearing for the 4th respondent - "Appeal
Committee", submitted that Ext.P3 has been issued
in terms of the applicable guidelines, which is
evident from the fact that a detailed report from
the original judges had been called for. He
pointed out that Ext.P3 contains the report of
the judges, to the effect that the performance of
the petitioner was not 'up to the mark' and that
'her hand gestures were not graceful. Moreover,
she was over expressive and she could have done
it with limited and graceful expressions' (sic).
He admitted that it is based on this alone, that
the Appellate Committee rejected the petitioner's
Appeal.
4. Sri.S.Nirmal - learned Standing Counsel
for the CBSE, conceded that, as per the
applicable guidelines, Ext.P3 ought to have been WP(C) NO. 37936 OF 2023
signed by the Chairperson of the Kalotsav; but
that it has been signed by the President of the
Appellate Committee. He submitted that even if
this is taken to be a technical issue, the
decision on the Appeal does not appear to be as
per the prescriptions because, it provides that
every Appeal should be considered on its merits
and on technical grounds.
5. I must commend Sri.S.Nirmal for the afore
candid submission because, even if he were to
speak otherwise, this Court would have found
against Ext.P3. This is because, no Appeal can be
allowed to be settled merely based on the report
of the original Judging Panel; since by its
nature, such a procedure becomes anachronistic.
When a participant challenges the actions of the
original Judging Panel, the Appellant Committee
ought to have considered it independently; but WP(C) NO. 37936 OF 2023
not on the basis of the report of the said panel,
as has been done in Ext.P3.
6. Obviously, this Court cannot grant
imprimatur to Ext.P3, particularly when it is
conspicuously silent as to whether the
performance of the petitioner had been reviewed
by the Appellate Committee through video
recordings or such other. In fact, the learned
counsel for the 4th respondent admits that no
such was done and that it could not be done,
because it runs into several hours. I am afraid
that even this cannot find favour of this Court
because performance of the petitioner would not
run into several hours, but only to a few
minutes, as is prescribed under the scheme of the
event.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ
petition and set aside Ext.P3; with a WP(C) NO. 37936 OF 2023
consequential direction to the Appellate
Committee to immediately reconsider the Appeal of
the petitioner, after affording her an
opportunity of being heard and after adverting to
her contentions, as also examining the video
recording of the event; thus culminating in an
appropriate fresh order, as expeditiously as is
possible, but not later than 21.11.2023.
Depending upon the decision to be taken as afore,
the petitioner will be allowed to participate in
the State School Kalotsav as per law.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS WP(C) NO. 37936 OF 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37936/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD NO.31182, ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ON APPEAL DATED 4.11.2023, ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS TYPED COPY Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ON APPEAL, DATED 4.11.2023, ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS TYPED COPY Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MERIT CERTIFICATE DATED NIL, ISSUED BY THE CONVENER OF MADAKKATHARA GRAMAPANCHAYAT KERALOTSAVAM
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!