Anamika K vs The State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 1888 Ker

Kerala High Court

Anamika K vs The State Of Kerala on 3 January, 2025

                                                  2025:KER:21
WP(C) NO. 46540 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. 46540 OF 2024

PETITIONERS:
    1     ANAMIKA K
          AGED 15 YEARS
          (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN, FATHER BABU.
          K, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O KRISHNANKUTTY, KOLOTHODY
          HOUSE, CHUNAGAD (P.O), OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD
          DISTRICT, PIN - 679511

    2     DIYA . M. A
          AGED 14 YEARS
          (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN , FATHER M.A.
          ANIL KUMAR AGED 49 YEARS, S/O J.S. AYYAVU
          CHETTIYAR, MOOTHEDATHPADI STREET, MAYANNUR,
          OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679105

    3     AVANTHIAK M
          AGED 14 YEARS
          (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN, MOTHER DIVYA,
          AGED 37 YEARS, W/O AJAY BAL, MANGHAT HOUSE,
          NIVEDHYAM, LAKKIDI, OTTAPALAM , PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
          PIN - 679301

    4     ARSHA K
          AGED 13 YEARS
          (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN, MOTHER ASHA.
          M.V. KOZHICHUNDA HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMPURAM POST, MANNUR
          PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678642

    5     AJANYA KRISHNA C
          AGED 14 YEARS
          (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN, MOTHER
          LEELAVATHY, W/O RADHA KRISHNAN,C, CHOLOTHIL HOUSE,
          VENGASSERY, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
          679516
                                                            2025:KER:21
WP(C) NO. 46540 OF 2024               2


     6       NEETHU. K.V
             AGED 14 YEARS
             (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN MOTHER, REMYA.
             N W/O VOINOD KUMAR, KILLIKURUSSI HOUSE, LAKKIDI
             POST, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679301

     7       AARDHRA .P
             AGED 14 YEARS
             (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN, FATHER
             SANTHOSH ,C, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O E.T. RADHAKRISHNAN
             NAIR, SMERA, CHERAKKE, PANAYAR POST, VANIYAMKULAM,
             OTTAPALAM , PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679522


             BY ADV K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)
RESPONDENTS:

     1       THE STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE
             GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT , SECOND FLOOR,
             SOUTH SANDWICH BLOCK, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
             THIRUVANTHAPYURAM, PIN - 695001

     2       THE DIRECTOR
             DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHI,
             THIRUVANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695014

     3       THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
             PALAKKAD, CIVIL STATION, KENATHUPARAMBU,
             KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001

     4       THE CHAIRMAN
             APPEAL COMMITTEE , PALAKKAD REVENUE DISTRICT
             KALOLSAVAM 2024-25, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
             OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD. CIVIL STATION,
             KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN -
             678001

             SRI.VENUGOPAL V-SR.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:21
WP(C) NO. 46540 OF 2024               3




                              JUDGMENT

The petitioners were the participants in the item

'Margham Kali' (General Section) in the Palakkad Revenue

District Kalolsavam 2024-25. They could secure only the

3rd position. The specific allegations are that the sound

system was faulty and the surface was not even. These

allegations find a place in Ext.P1 appeal preferred by

the 1st petitioner. After considering the appeal

preferred by the 1st petitioner, the Appellate Authority

found that the same facilities were extended to all the

candidates and the similar consideration was given to

all.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners,

this amounts to an admission with respect to the faulty

sound system and once the sound system is found to be

faulty, the petitioners are entitled to the relief

sought for, is the submission made.

2025:KER:21

3. This Court cannot accept the contention raised by the

learned counsel for the petitioners. Primarily, this

Court finds that the facilities extended by the

organizers of the programme was common and even to all

the candidates, including the petitioners. Therefore,

the petitioners cannot pick up any peculiar grievance

with respect to the alleged faulty sound system. That

apart, the finding in Ext.P2 Appellate Order that all

teams were given even treatment will not amount to an

admission that the mike system was faulty. Ext.P2 would

indicate that the 1st petitioner was heard in person and

that the authority had perused and analized the score

sheet, the video and the report of the stage manager,

which would not reveal any of the allegations leveled in

the appeal memorandum.

4. As against the factual findings made by the Appellate

Authority, this Court cannot sit in appeal. This Court

cannot, in its exercise under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, interfere with the factual

findings.

2025:KER:21

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

accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE SVP 2025:KER:21

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 46540/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 29.11.24

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS ORDER NO. DDEPKD/5501/ 2024-K2 DATED 05.12.24