Kerala High Court
Abimanyu R vs Director Of General Education on 3 January, 2025
1
W.P.(C) No.46321 of 2024
2025:KER:42
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. 46321 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ABIMANYU R
AGED 16 YEARS
S/O RAJI V M ,REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER RAJI VM
AGED 38 W/O RAJESHKUMAR RAJESH BHAVAN ,
KUDAVANDU , PEREYAM P.O , NANNIYODE , PALODE
THIRUVANATHAPURAM , KERALA, PIN - 695562
BY ADV ARYA B.
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
STATUE, GENERAL HOSPITAL, GENERAL HOSPITAL
2
W.P.(C) No.46321 of 2024
JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 CHAIRMAN APPEAL COMMITTEE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, O/O. THE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695036
ADV.SMT.SURYA BINOY-SENIOR GOVERNMNET PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.46321 of 2024
2025:KER:42
3
C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
=======================
W.P.(C.) No.46321 of 2024
========================
Dated this the 03rd day of January, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner participated in the event "Dafmuttu" in
the Higher Secondary School Kalolsavam. The petitioner
had obtained only the 3rd position, with A-Grade. The
specific allegation made is that the judges of the event
were close aides of the tutor of the team which bagged
the first prize.
2. The learned counsel would point out that the
petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard in
person, which according to the learned counsel is a
mandatory provision. On such premise, the petitioner seeks
the writ petition to be allowed, permitting the petitioner
to contest in the State Kalolsavam.
3. The above submissions were seriously refuted by the
2025:KER:42
learned Government Pleader. It was pointed out that there
is no mandate to hear the petitioner in every case. Going
by the circular issued by the Director General of
Education, the petitioners in the appeals need to be
heard, if the same is found necessary.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties, this Court finds little merit in the
instant writ petition. The specific allegation raised as
regards the bias of the judge is not even prima facie made
out by any material before this Court. That apart, this
Court notice that there is a difference of 31 marks
between the petitioner and the 1st rank holder. Perusal of
Ext.P1 would indicate that the appeal committee had
perused and analysed the video and the score sheet, to
find that the allegations levelled in the appeal has not
been made out.
5. In such circumstances, there cannot be any
interference, only for the reason that the petitioner was
not heard, especially when the circular issued by the
2025:KER:42
General Education Department does not mandate, but only
stipulates such hearing, wherever it is required.
Accordingly, this writ petition fails and the same
stands dismissed.
Sd/-
C.JAYACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
SMF
2025:KER:42
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 46321/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.C4/8387/2024DDE
DATED 16.12.2024 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT,
