IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37323 of 2008(R)
1. RESHMA.P.R., 15 YEARS, D/O.REMESH.P.N.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. GENERAL CONVENOR,
... Respondent
2. CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE,
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM.
For Petitioner :SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :17/12/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C).No.37323 of 2008
-------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was a participant in the
competition for group dance held as part of the
Kottayam East Sub District Kalolsavam. One other
team, which participated in the said item, was
awarded the first place. The petitioner challenged
the same before the appellate committee. It was
contended that the stage setting was quite
inadequate. Some tables were arranged in a haphazard
manner and the students participants were asked to
perform the item on the said stage. It is further
contended that the Judges were also not eligible to
sit as Judges. A perusal of Ext.P3 would show that
the appeal preferred by the petitioner’s team was
rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the appellate committee has not considered any
one of the grounds urged. I would have considered
this, had the petitioner produced a copy of the
appeal. The appeal preferred was in the prescribed
form. Unless the petitioner is able to substantiate
that the contentions which are urged in the writ
petition, were also urged in the appeal, it is not
W.P.(C).NO.37323/08
:: 2 ::
possible for this court to appreciate the contention
that the appellate committee has failed to consider
the appeal on merits.
2. Further, the ground for interference in a
matter of this kind, in proceedings under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, are extremely narrow.
The first contention taken up by the petitioner
regarding the inadequacy of the stage would obviously
have been applicable to the other teams also. The
second contention relates to the eligibility of the
Judges. This is a matter for subjective satisfaction
and unless there is any striking irregularity in the
constitution of the Judges’ panel, it would not be
appropriate for this court to interfere with the
assessment or relative merits by the Judges.
I find no merit in the writ petition. It is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. To Judge