Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1890 Ker
Judgement Date : 3 January, 2025
WP(C) NO. 46820 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:81
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. 46820 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2024 IN OS NO.468 OF 2024 OF MUNSIFF
COURT, ALATHUR
PETITIONER:
SREESHA.S, (MINOR),
REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
SHEEBA. D, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O KUNCHU,
PANTHALAMCODE HOUSE, PULLODE (P.O), ALATHUR,
ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678 545
BY ADVS.
ARUN CHANDRAN
HARIMOHAN
ASWATHY S MENON
AMRITA ARUN
HANA KARNOLIA MADONA CYRIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, JAGATHI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695 014
2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION CIVIL STATION,
PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 691 009
3 THE APPELLATE COMMITTEE
[CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA SCHOOL YOUTH FESTIVAL
MANUAL,], REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD, CIVIL STATION,
PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 691 009
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 46820 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:81
JUDGMENT
Dated, this the 3rd day of January, 2025
The petitioner had participated in the item 'Padyam
Chollal (English)' in the Revenue District Kerala
School Kalolsavam 2024-2025 at Palakkad. Though the
petitioner performed well, she could secure only the
2nd position, with A Grade. The specific grievance
espoused is that there was excess sound on the stage,
which affected the performance of the petitioner. The
judges were having food during the course of the
performance, and they were not paying attention to
the performance of the petitioner. The judges were in
a hurry to leave the stage, is another contention.
2. These allegations were seriously refuted by the
learned Government Pleader.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties, this Court finds little merit
in the instant writ petition. A perusal of the Ext.P2
order of the appeal committee would indicate that the
committee had considered the score sheet, video and WP(C) NO. 46820 OF 2024
2025:KER:81 the report of the stage manager. A perusal of the
same could not make out any of the grounds urged in
the appeal. There was no insufficiency in the stage,
is the finding. Coupled with the same, this Court
notice that the insufficiency, if any, was not
peculiar for the petitioner, but common for all the
candidates. It was also pointed out by the learned
Government Pleader that the difference between the
marks obtained by the petitioner and the person who
secured the 1st position is 12.
This writ petition lacks merit, and the same is
therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE AP/03-01 WP(C) NO. 46820 OF 2024
2025:KER:81 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 46820/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28.11.2024.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPEAL BEARING DATE 05.12.2024.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MUNISFF COURT ALATHUR IN I.A 2172/2024 IN O.S NO. 468/2024, BEARING DATE 21.12.2024.
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!