Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 36594
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V. G. Arun, J
ANASOOYA.P. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 41888 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: JAYASREE K.P., JOHN JOSEPH
For the Respondents: SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE
The appeal committees of school competitions are not judicial bodies, limiting grounds for judicial review.
Headnote:The petitioner, a student, challenged the dismissal of her appeal regarding her performance in a school competition citing malfunctions in the stage mic and issues with the judging process. The court noted the limited scope for interference as the appeal committees are not judicial or quasi-judicial bodies. The appeal committee's decision, which followed a review of performance footage, did not present extraordinary circumstances warranting judicial intervention.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner participated in competition and raised concerns regarding result. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. government pleader notes differences in scores, appealing committee's consideration of complaint. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner participated in Kolenchery Sub District School Kalolsavam, for the item ‘Bharatanatyam’, in the High School category but could not secure first place. Disappointed with the result, the petitioner preferred an appeal which stands dismissed by Ext.P4. Aggrieved, this writ petition is filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the specific case put forth by the petitioner in her appeal was that the mic system on the stage was not functioning properly and this had impacted her performance. Yet another complaint is that the results were announced only after the judges had a discussion among themselves.
3. Learned Government Pleader submits that there is a six mark difference between the petitioner and the first placed student and the appeal was rejected after considering all aspects.
As has been repeatedly held by this Court in various decisions, including Sweety v. State of Kerala [1994 KHC 216] , the appeal committees of School Kalolsavams are not judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies and therefore, scope for interference in exercise of the power under judicial review is very limited. Moreover, a perusal of Ext.P4 shows that the appeal committee had considered the petitioner’s complaint and even viewed the video recording of her performance before rejecting the appeal. Being so, no extraordinary circumstance is made out for invoking the power under Article
226. Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41888/2024 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT DATED
08.11.2023 SECURED BY THE PETITIONER FOR HS GENERAL, BHARATANATYAM (GIRLS) AT KOLENCHERY EDUCATIONAL SUB DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM
2023-24 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT DATED
19.11.2022 SECURED BY THE PETITIONER FOR UP GENERAL, BHARATANATYAM (GIRLS) AT KOLENCHERY EDUCATIONAL SUB DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM
2022-23 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT, DATED:
NIL SECURED BY THE PETITIONER FOR UP GENERAL, MOHINIYATTAM (GIRLS) AT 33RD ERNAKULAM REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2022 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.11.2024 PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT APPEAL COMMITEE REJECTING THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM MANUAL
