IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 15TH POUSHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 43306 OF 2023 PETITIONER:

AJSAL NOUSHID. M AGED 15 YEARS REP. BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN MRS. SHIMJI P MECHERI HOUSE, ANJAPPURA, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -

676303 BY ADVS.

T.M.RAMAN KARTHA MANJU R. KARTHA M.S.SOUJATH SYAMA MOHAN REVATHY M.A.

GREESHMA T.G.

SNEHA BRIGIT PRINCE RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, GOVT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001

2 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION MALAPPURAM & GENERAL CONVENOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM APPEAL COMMITTEE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505 3 MALAPPURAM DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM APPEAL COMMITTEE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL CONVENOR, PIN - 676505 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

05.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT The petitioner says that he and his team participated in the Revenue District Kerala School Kalolsavam 2023-24 in a particular event, but was adjudged only A Grade. He affirms that, as per the Manual applicable to the event in question, only the first rank holder would obtain the opportunity of moving to the next level of competition, namely the Kerala State School Kalolsavam 2023-24; and therefore, that he preferred a statutory appeal against the result before the competent Appellate Authority, which, however, has culminated in Ext.P4 order. The petitioner and his team assert that Ext.P4 is illegal and unlawful because, it cites no reason for the rejection of his appeal.

2. In response to the afore submissions of Sri.T.M.Raman Kartha – learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader, submitted that Ext.P4 contains specific reasons why the appeal of the petitioner was found to be undeserving; and that this is manifest from its contents. He added that, in any event, it has now been well established, through the judgment of this Court in Devna Sumesh v. State of Kerala [2022 KHC OnLine 8081], that once the statutory appeal is rejected, the competence of this Court to act under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is severely attenuated, since it would involve assessment of factual and other relevant criteria, which cannot be done while acting under writ jurisdiction.

3. I have examined Ext.P4 and I must say that there is force in the afore submissions of Sri.Sunil Kuamr Kuriakose.

4. This is because, Ext.P4 luculently records that the technical objections raised by the petitioner and his tam for their performance to be affected at the Revenue District Kerala School Kalolsavam, were found not tenable, or not discernible from the video recording. The statutory Appellate Committee could have done nothing more than to have heard the petitioner and his team and to have examined the video recording; and it is in their expertise and wisdom to assess it in the manner as is legally appropriate. When the Committee takes the view that the objections raised by the petitioner and his team are not tenable, it would not be possible to substitute their wisdom, with that of this Court.

In the afore circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43306/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF APPEAL ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT REGARDING DISPOSAL OF APPEALS Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF MALAPPURAM DISTRICT REVENUE KALOLSAVAM APPEAL COMMITTEE.