Abin Chacko vs Director Of General Education
2025 Latest Caselaw 1874 Ker

Kerala High Court

Abin Chacko vs Director Of General Education on 3 January, 2025

                                                                2025:KER:32
WP(C) NO. 46575 OF 2024                1


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

     FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 13TH POUSHA, 1946

                      WP(C) NO. 46575 OF 2024

PETITIONER:
          ABIN CHACKO
          AGED 15 YEARS
          S/O CHACKOCHAN COLONY NO 96 MAMPUZHAKARY,RAMANKARY
          RAMANKARY, ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY FATHER,
          CHACKOCHAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O JOSEPH, COLONY NO 96
          MAMPUZHAKARY,RAMANKARY RAMANKARY,ALAPPUZHA,
          KERALA., PIN - 689595

             BY ADV MIRAL K.JOY
RESPONDENTS:
    1     DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
          O/O THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

     2       KALOLSAVAM COMMITTEE CONVENER
             ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, O/O THE
             ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

     3       DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
             O/O THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE, MEDICAL
             COLLEGE JN, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688005

     4       CHAIRMAN APPEAL COMMITTEE
             DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KODIVEEDU, ALAPPUZHA,
             KERALA, PIN - 688001

             SRI.E.V.GORDEN-GP


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   03.01.2025,   THE   COURT    ON       THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                            2025:KER:32
WP(C) NO. 46575 OF 2024              2


                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner was a contestant in the 'Chavittu Nadakam'

event. He could secure only the 3rd position, with 'A'

Grade. The evaluation is challenged on the ground that

there were disturbance from the mike, besides the sound

from the nearby stages, where other programmes were being

conducted. Another allegation leveled is that the judges

were inimically predisposed to the tutor of the

petitioner's team.

2. As regards the first allegation that there were

disturbances in the mike and from the nearby stages, this

Court finds that the grievance, if any, of the petitioner

is common with other contestants. The petitioner cannot

espouse any peculiar grievance in this regard. As regards

the second allegation that there were animosity between

the judges and the tutor of the petitioner's team, there

exists no material before this Court to ascertain the

same.

3. A perusal of Ext.P1 Appellate Order would indicate

that the petitioner was heard in person, besides 2025:KER:32

analyzing and perusing the score sheet and the video of

the event. On such perusal, the committee could not make

out any of the allegations leveled in the complaint. A

specific technical reason as to why the petitioner's team

could obtain only the 3rd position is also seen stated in

Ext.P1.

4. This court cannot sit in appeal over the factual

findings made by the Appellate Authority in exercise of

its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. Nor this Court is expected to do so.

In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is

accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE SVP 2025:KER:32

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 46575/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL ORDER NO. D.D.E.A.L. P/C1/6215/2024 (36) DATED 07/12/2024