Nandana Narayanan (Minor) v. Government of India and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/16TH KARTHIKA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 21784 of 2012 (W)** ## **---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER:** ## **-------------** **NANDANA NARAYANAN (MINOR), STUDENT, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, PAYYANNUR REP. BY HER FATHER NARAYANAN P.K., 'KASTHUBHAM', NEAR MADATHUMPADI TEMPLE PAYYANNUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 307.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.V.SOHAN** **SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH PULIMOOTTIL SRI.K.MOHANAN SRI.N.N.ARUN BECHU SRI.ROVIN RODRIGUES** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **------------** **1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI, PIN 110016.** **2. THE COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN, 18, INSTITUTIONAL AREA SHAHEED, JEET SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI-110 016.** **3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN, REGIONAL OFFICE KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 020.** **4. THE PRINCIPAL KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695 004.** **5. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA PANGOD, TEAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL ARMY CANTT., THIRUMALA P.O., PANGOD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 006.** **6. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA ERNAKULAM TEAM REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL KADAVANTHARA, ERNAKULAM-682 020.** **VK** **WP(C).No. 21784 of 2012 (W) ---------------------------** **7. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA KANJIKODE TEAM REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL KANJIKODE WEST, PALAKKAD-678 623.** **8. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA NO.1 KANJIKODE, REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL EAST HILL, WEST HILL P.O., PIN-673 005.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA R2 TO 8 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-11-2012, THE COURT ON 7.11.2012 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **VK** **WP(C).No. 21784 of 2012 (W) ---------------------------** **APPENDIX --------** **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS: NIL** **----------------------** **EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE NOTE ON PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCTING YOUTH PARLIAMENT COMPETITION PUBLISHED BY THE MINISTRY OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS.** **EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE REGULATION PUBLISHED IN THE HAND BOOK ON THE WORKING OF MINISTRY OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONDUCT OF YOUTH PARLIAMENT AT REGIONAL AND NATIONAL LEVEL-PAGES 144153.** **EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN THE WEB SITE OF RESPONDENT NO.5 SCHOOL REGARDING 25TH YOUTH PARLIAMENT COMPETITION.** **EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE SCRIPT PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER AND HER TEAM WHICH WAS PRESENTED IN THE 25TH NATIONAL YOUTH PARLIAMENT REGIONAL LEVEL COMPETITION HELD AT KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, PATTOM.** **EXT.P4(a): COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF HINDI PORTION IN EXT.P4.** **EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE TEAM OF THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NO.2, DTD.28.8.2012.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :** **---------------------** **EXT.R2(A). COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN IN THE FORM OF A CERTIFICATE BY SHRI.N.K.PREMACHANDAN 28.9.2012.** **EXT.R2(B). COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER CUTTING A (HINDU) DATED 23.8.2012** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **VK** ## **T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** ## **W.P.(C).No. 21784 of 2012** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DATED THIS THE 7th OF NOVEMBER, 2012** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is a student of Kendriya Vidyala, Payyannur who is aggrieved by the conduct of Regional Level Youth Parliament Competition. Mainly it is a case where the petitioner challenges the same for the reason that the panel of judges did not include a Member of Parliament/former Member of Parliament/MLA/MLC/Ex.MLA/Ex.MLC, as specified in the scheme Exts.P1 and P2. 2. The Regional Level Youth Parliament Competition 2012-2013 was held at Kendriya Vidyalaya Pattom on 22.8.2012. The petitioner and her team participated in the same. Respondents 5 to 8 also participated in the competition and ultimately respondent No.5 was declared as winner. 3. While tracing out the history of the conduct of the Youth Parliament, it is explained that Regional Level competitions and Zonal Level competitions are being held and thereafter in the National Level also competitions will be held among the first price winners in the Regional Level. The scheme is framed by the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs. Ext.P2 is the regulation published in the Hand Book on the working of W.P.(C).No.21784/2012 -2- Parliamentary Affairs. The Judges who were present in the competition were: (1) Shri Johnson, Assistant Commissioner, Ernakulam Region; (2) Prof.G. Gopakumar, Department of Political Science, University of Kerala; and (3) Prof. Josekutty, Department of Political Science, University of Kerala. It did not include an M.P. or an M.L.A. It is alleged that Prof. Gopakumar and Prof. Josekutty are not well-known educationalists of the region and Prof. Josekutty is a co-worker of Prof. Gopakumar. Respondent No.5 was declared as winner because of their personal interest also. Thus, the petitioner seeks for a declaration that the event conducted without including a Member of Parliament in the judging panel, should be declared as invalid and against the scheme prepared by the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs. 4. The respondents have filed separate counter affidavits and the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit also. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent it is explained that the competitions are held at two stages, viz. at Regional Level and Zonal Level and at the Regional Level each region will have 5 W.P.(C).No.21784/2012 -3- teams to participate. The regional winner from each region from all over the country will participate at national level competition. The national level competitions are conducted at 6 different zones in different parts of the country. Each zone will have a maximum of 3 teams. Based on the overall points secured by the team from all zones, the national winner is declared by the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs. 6. With regard to the requirement to have a local MP/MLA, etc. it is pointed out that in all cases they are not available for watching the entire team's performance and therefore it is the duty of the Assistant Commissioner to look after the competition along with the rest of the judging panel. In the case of National competition, the same procedure is undertaken by the officials of the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, since the same Member of Parliament cannot judge all the zonal venues. Though the MPs are given top priority, due to their busy schedule or change of their programme at the final moment, the competitions are to be judged by the rest of the team. In the present case, it is stated that the panel of judges were formed in the following manner: (1) Shri N.K. Premachandran, former W.P.(C).No.21784/2012 -4- Water Resource Minister for the State who is also a former Member of the Parliament; (2) Shri Johnson Mathew, Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Ernakulam Region; (3) Shri G. Gopakumar, former Director General of the Institute of Parliamentary Affairs & Retd. Professor & HOD, Department of Political Science, University of Kerala; and (4) Shri Josekutty, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Kerala. Thus, it is pointed out that the competition was held in terms of the scheme. Shri N.K. Premachandran, the former Minister for Water Resource could not witness the performance of all the teams due to paucity of time and his busy schedule which is clear from Ext.R2(a) letter. Thus, it is pointed out that there had been compliance with the provisions of the scheme. It is also stated that the regional level competition had to be completed before 30.8.2012 and since the period was during Onam, it was very difficult to get a Member of Parliament for the whole programme. It is further submitted that highly qualified judges have evaluated the performance. In para 16 of the counter affidavit, the profile of Prof. G. Gopakumar and Prof. Josekutty have been explained. Prof. G. Gopakumar is currently W.P.(C).No.21784/2012 -5- University Grants Commission Emeritus Professor in the Department of Political Science, University of Kerala. After his career as Lecturer, Reader and Professor, he became the Head of the Department and Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences, in Kerala University. He also served as Director General of the Institute of Parliamentary Affairs, Government of Kerala during 2009-2011. It is also stated that he has published 11 books and has 135 research articles in the area of Comparative Politics, International Relations, Indian Politics, etc. Certain other aspects relating to him, have also been pointed out including that he has also served as Visiting Professor in various Canadian and American Universities. Dr. Josekutty is working as Assistant Professor of the Department of Political Science, University of Kerala. He is also concerned with the area of Parliamentary Procedures. Finally, it is stated that when the result was announced, no team or individual had raised any query or allegation about the integrity of the conduct of competition or against the judges who assessed the performance. It is stated that it was conducted in a fair and transparent manner. In the additional counter affidavit also, all these aspects have been W.P.(C).No.21784/2012 -6- reiterated. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the scheme provides for inclusion of an M.P/Ex.M.P/MLA/MLC/Ex.MLA/Ex.MLC, the non inclusion of any of them in the judging panel, will vitiate the result of the entire competition. It is submitted that a Member of Parliament will have vast experience in matters with parliamentary procedures and the scheme provides for inclusion of such a member as he can assess the whole matters relating to the participating teams in the competition. Apart from that, it is submitted that the absence of such a member will make the judging panel ineffective and the competition itself will be affected. 8. In support of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the following decisions are relied upon: **S.B. Bhattacharjee v. S.D. Majumdar & Others** (AIR 2007 SC 2102), **Chandigarh Adminstration through the Director, Public Instructions (Colleges), Chandigarh v. Usha Kheterpal Wale and others** (2011 KHC 4774) and **Krishnaiah R. v. Union of India** (2012 KHC 2482). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the principle is well settled that when W.P.(C).No.21784/2012 -7- a statute provides for a particular mode of doing things, no other mode of performance can be accepted. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that herein, in fact the former Member of Parliament and former Minister for Water Resources, Government of Kerala, Shri N.K. Premachandran was included in the panel and Ext.R2(a) will show that he had witnessed the performance of one of the five contesting teams and had to leave because of other pre occupations. It is submitted that merely because the judging panel could not include the former M.P., the proceedings are not vitiated. The scheme is not a statutory one. What is contemplated is the conduct of a competition and the judges herein were highly qualified. Any alleged defect in the constitution of judges will not therefore affect the result of the competition itself. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has not impleaded any of the rival individual participants in the party array in the writ petition. It is also stated that the Zonal level competitions have been held in Hyderabad on 12[th] and 13[th] of October, 2012 at Kendriya Vidyalaya MEG, Bangalore. On the basis of the region-wise competitions, the fifth respondent was declared as W.P.(C).No.21784/2012 -8- winner in the Hyderabad Zone. The other Zonal level competitions are in progress at different zones. 10. The scheme, viz. Ext.P2 of course provides the procedure and going by the same, the Committee of judges will contain: (1) MP/Ex.MP/MLA/MLC/Ex.MLA/Ex.MLC; (2) An officer of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan of the respective regions; and (3) The Principal of a non-participating vidyalaya of the region or some local prominent educationalist. That Shri N.K. Premachandran, former Minister and former M.P. was included in the panel, and it cannot be of any dispute and he had watched the performance of one team also. But because of pressing other commitments, he had to leave early. By no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the same will vitiate the entire competition conducted. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the Members of Parliament, M.L.As. and even former Members are political personalities who may not be available all the time for fulfilling the criteria and therefore the respondents have entrusted the duty to the Assistant Commissioner to look after the competition along with the rest of the judging panel. The W.P.(C).No.21784/2012 -9- absence, therefore, of the M.P., M.L.As. and other personalities, cannot result in invalidation of the competition itself. The date of the competitions are pre-fixed and have to be finalised within a particular period and herein it had to be over by 30.8.2012. To a specific question to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what was the procedure required to be adopted in the absence of the former M.P. herein, the answer was that the competitions should have been adjourned till his availability is confirmed. I cannot agree. A competition like this among the Kendirya Vidyalayas will have to be conducted within the time provided and there are different participants also. After the Regional level competitions are held, Zonal level will have to be conducted. All these preparations for the competition, that too to be culminated within a time limit, will go waste merely because of the non availability of one member of the judging panel. The same is safeguarded by the method adopted by the respondents properly by the coordination of an official of the respondents itself. Apart from that, herein on the facts of the case also it can be seen that there is no alleged violation as the former Minister and former M.P. was actually in the judging panel W.P.(C).No.21784/2012 -10- and had participated for some time. The petitioner has not been successful in establishing that the other members of the panel were not competent. Dr. G. Gopakumar has been the Director General of Institute of Parliamentary Affairs, Government of Kerala, who is conversant with the field and has immense experience as explained in the counter affidavit. Prof. Josekutty is also the Assistant Professor or Department of Political Science, University of Kerala. Therefore, the vague allegations that they had interest with the winning team, will not lead to anywhere, so as to nullify the result of the competition itself. Such allegations cannot be accepted on its face value. 11. It is true that when a statute prescribes a particular mode of doing things, the said mode will have to be complied with. But herein, the scheme is a non statutory one. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are in respect of different statutory prescriptions. In **Krishnaiah's case** (2012 KHC 2482), the Andhra Pradesh High Court was considering Section 9 of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992. It was held that since there is a statutorily prescribed mode, the said W.P.(C).No.21784/2012 -11- procedure will have to be mandatorily followed for identifying backward classes. The decision of the Apex Court in **Chandigarh Administration's case** (2011 KHC 4774) related to the filling up of the post of Principal and the argument of violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India was considered. It was held that it is for the rule making authority or the appointing authority to prescribe the mode of selection and minimum qualification for any recruitment. Such is not the case here. 12. **S.B. Bhattacharjee's case** (AIR 2007 SC 2102) considered a promotion under the rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India where the Apex Court in para 30 held that the Departmental Promotion Committee will have to follow the procedures laid down for assessing the merit and suitability of the candidate. The said dictum is clearly distinguishable on the facts of this case. Their Lordships in the said judgment, held that “where the State lays down the procedures as to how and in what manner the merit and suitability is to be judged, it was obligatory on the part of the commission to follow the same in its letter and spirit.” It was one involving the promotion of a candidate in terms of a W.P.(C).No.21784/2012 -12- statutory rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. None of these judgments will help the petitioner herein. The scheme Ext.P2 is a non statutory one. In such cases substantial compliance alone is required and no prejudice has also been pointed out as contended in the counter affidavit of respondents 2 to 8. After the result was announced, no team had raised any allegations about the integrity of the judges, or other aspects of the conduct of the competition. 13. In a matter like this, the time limit for conduct of the competition has to be gone into. If, as insisted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, then every time when a member of the judging panel has to leave the place because of pressing official programmes or otherwise, the competitions will have to be adjourned. It will be a never ending affair resulting in delay in the conduct of the competition at the zonal level and announcement of the winner at the National level. The petitioner has not established any bias or malafides in the matter. Only vague allegations have been raised. One of the points raised is that there should have been videography of the entire episode. The absence of the same also cannot vitiate the result of the W.P.(C).No.21784/2012 -13- competition. In the light of the above finding, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. **(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)** **kav/**