Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56770
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G.ARUN, J
VAISHNA BABU (MINOR) – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 43235 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN, SRI.K.S.RAJESH
For the Respondents: SMT. AMMINIKUTTY, SR.GP.
Judicial review is not warranted in appeals where adequate procedural consideration has been provided by the relevant authorities.
Headnote:The petitioner, a minor, challenged the rejection of her appeal regarding a school festival performance, where she was placed second despite scoring the same grade as the first. The Court concluded that the Appeal Committee properly considered relevant aspects, including the marks scored by each participant, dismissing the writ petition as the appeals process was found adequate. The Court refrained from invoking judicial review based on procedural grievances raised.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner participated in a school festival. (Para 1) |
| 2. appeal committee's process was properly followed. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
JUDGMENT The petitioner participated for the item ‘Mohiniyattam’
in the Kodungallur Sub District Kerala School Festival and secured second place with ‘A‘ grade. The petitioner's grievance is that, in spite of scoring 'A' grade and five points, the same grade and points scored by the first placed student, the petitioner was placed in second position. The petitioner has a further grievance that her performance was impeded by the poor quality of the sound system. Raising these grievances, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which the Appeal Committee rejected by Ext.P3. Hence, this Writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the appeal committee has stated that the Stage Manager's report was verified, the contents of the report were not made known to the petitioner.
3. According to the learned Government Pleader, a perusal of Ext.P3 would show that the Appeal Committee had considered all relevant aspects and viewed the video of the performance before rejecting the appeal. It is further submitted that the first placed student had scored 63 marks, whereas the petitioner scored only 59 marks.
4. In such circumstances, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the contents of the Stage Manager's report were not revealed to the petitioner is not sufficient to prompt this Court to invoke the power of judicial review.
The Writ Petition is hence dismissed.
