Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 15899
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SHAJI P.CHALY, J
RAJALAKSHMI V B , REP BY FATHER V N BINU – Appellant
Versus
APPEAL COMMITTEE – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 37283/2016
The court emphasized that claims of discrimination require clear evidence, which was not present in this case.
Headnote:
Judicial Review - Education Competition - N/A - The court affirmed the appellate authority's decision, finding no evidence of discrimination or arbitrariness in the arrangements for the competition, emphasizing equal treatment of participants.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a 10th-grade student, challenged the rank given in a science competition, claiming unfair treatment by being made to compete in a crowded space while others had more comfortable conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded there was no discrimination against the petitioner, as all participants competed under similar conditions, and the arrangements were deemed adequate.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was arbitrarily treated differently from other participants in the competition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no substantial evidence of unequal treatment, thus reaffirming the decision of the appellate authority as justified and reasonable.
Final Decision: Writ petition dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
-------------------
Petitioner is a student studying in 10th standard at D.D.S.H. School, Karimpadam. Petitioner and one another has participated in the Revenue District School Sasthrolsavam 2016-17 and secured 3rd place with A grade in the working model - science fair competition. Aggrieved by the rank given to the petitioner and her colleague an appeal was preferred and in the appeal Ext.P2 order is passed declining the relief sought for by the petitioner. It is thus challenging Ext.P2, this writ petition is filed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and pleadings put forth by the petitioner.
3. The main grievance voiced by the petitioner is that, petitioner and her colleague had to take part in the competition by performing in a crowded veranda, where as other participants were given a place with more comfort and space which did enable the said participates to perform in a better manner. However, in Ext.P2, it is stated that apart from the petitioner others also performed in the veranda and there was no separate space provided for their participation in a more convenient place.
4. When the matter came up for admission learned Government Pleader was directed to take instructions as to whether the petitioner is singled out, by compelling her to participate in the process, by carrying out the exercise undertaken in a crowded veranda and others were given more space. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that four participants performed in the veranda and sufficient space was available for making necessary arrangements to the petitioner. Therefore it can be seen that, the allegation that, petitioner was singled out and thereby discriminated cannot be sustained.
5. Taking note of the respective submissions made across the bar and on a perusal of Ext.P2 order passed by the appellate authority, I do not think, petitioner has made out any case of arbitrariness or illegality warranting interference of this Court exercising the power of judicial review against Ext.P2.
Resultantly writ petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed.
