IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 9 of 2007()
1. ANJALI DEVI S.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
... Respondent
2. GENERAL CONVENER,
3. APPEAL COMMITTEE OF ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
4. MR.JOSEPH (TEACHER),
5. NIGHILA KRISHNAN (STUDENT),
For Petitioner :SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.V.K.BALI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN
Dated :05/01/2007
O R D E R
(V.K.BALI, C.J. & M.RAMACHANDRAN, J)
-------------------------------------------------------------
W.A.No. 9 of 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2007
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran, J:
Petitioner in W.P.(C).No.33374 of 2006 is the appellant
herein. She is minor represented by her mother. She had
participated in the district level Youth Festival at Alappuzha. In
the matter of adjudging “Bharatanatyam” competition, according
to her, there was a serious error committed; the details thereof
had been given in the writ petition. It is submitted that the 5th
respondent had been conferred with a higher position, and it was
possible to spell out favouritism. It is submitted that while the
competition was held, there was defective stage arrangements,
which had contributed to the unenviable situation.
2. The appeal filed also had been rejected improperly
and the presence of the 4th respondent in the panel, who was the
teacher of the 5th respondent, might have influenced the
authorities. Therefore, the request is that notwithstanding the
selection of the 5th respondent, appellant may be permitted to
participate in the Higher Secondary State Youth Festival 2006-
2007.
[WA No.9 of 2007]
-2-
3. A learned single Judge found that there was no
complaint against the impartiality of the judges as such and
although it would have been appropriate on the part of the 4th
respondent to keep away from the appellate forum his presence
there might have been little consequence. The learned Judge had
adverted to the original marks awarded and found that the 5th
respondent had been adjudged as superior on the day of
competition. The writ petition was therefore dismissed.
4. Mr.Jacob P.Alex, appearing on behalf of the appellant,
submits that even after finding that the 4th respondent, who might
have bias, was in the appellate forum, the learned Judge was in
error in dismissing the writ petition. With reference to the
guidelines, it is submitted that the appellate authorities do have
the rights to arrange for a repeat performance of the participants
so as to adjudge the quality of performance and this ought to have
been resorted to.
5. We find it difficult to accept the submissions as above.
The 4th respondent was one of the six persons, who constituted to
the appellate body. He was only a teacher of the 5th respondent
and it is too feeble an argument to suggest that he had bias as
against the appellant. In stray cases it may be necessary, in the
discretion of the appellate authority, to arrange for a fresh
[WA No.9 of 2007]
-3-
performance to be done, but it may be unsafe for the High Court
to upset a decision for the only reason that in their discretion the
appellate authority had not decided to adopt this procedure. It is
well known that performance of masters may vary in standards
from day to day and this may be applicable even in the case of
budding artists, like the appellant/petitioner. It cannot be possible
to direct that notwithstanding the selection of the 5th respondent,
this Court is to see that the appellant too is permitted to
participate in the State level competition, as such a course may
jeopardize the conduct of the festival, or upset the arrangements.
The writ appeal is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
V.K.BALI
(CHIEF JUSTICE)
Sd/-
M.RAMACHANDRAN
(JUDGE)
mks/
– True Copy –
P.S.to Judge