NIRANJANA C. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 10[TH]DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 19TH KARTHIKA,1944 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 36074 OF 2022 ``` ## `PETITIONER/S:` ``` NIRANJANA C., MINOR 14 YEARS, D/O CHITHRA L., XTH STANDARD STUDENT, SVHSS, CLAPPANA P.O., KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN CHITHRA L., W/O MANU R, AGED 39 YEARS, SREECHITHIRA, NJAKKANAL P.O., OACHIRA, KOLLAM-690533. ``` ``` BY ADVS. B.MOHANLAL ABIJITH M. ``` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` 1 ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. ``` 2 ``` THE GENERAL CONVENER, KERALA SCHOOL SASTHROLSAVAM 2022-2023, (THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014). ``` 3 ``` THE CHAIRMAN APPEAL COMMITTEE, KERALA SCHOOL SASTHROLSAVAM 2022-2023 (THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THEVALLY P.O., KOLLAM-691009). ``` 4 ``` THE GENERAL CONVENOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT SCHOOL SASTHROLSAVAM 2022-2023 (THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, COLLECTORATE, CUTCHERY P.O., KOLLAM-691013). ``` 5 ``` AMEENA S. X-STANDARD STUDENT, KHADIRIYYA H.S, KOTTUKADU, KOTTUKADU P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM-690524, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN C/O HEADMASTER, KHADIRIYA H.S KOTTUKADU, KOTTUKADU P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM-690524. ``` 2 W.P. (C) No.36074 of 2022 6 ``` DEVADATHAN R. PILLAI, X-STANDARD STUDENT, VHSS ARAKKANNOOR, ARKANNOOR P.O., AYUR, KOLLAM-691516, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND GUARDIAN C/O HEADMASTER, VHSS ARAKANNOOR, ARKANNOOR P.O., AYUR, KOLLAM-691516. ``` ``` SMT.NISHA BOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 10.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 W.P. (C) No.36074 of 2022 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is a X Standard student pursuing her education at SVHSS, Clappana. She and her companion, a certain Gouri, participated in the Kollam Revenue District Social Science Fair 2022-23 in the event ‘Still Model’. They were awarded only 3rd prize in the competition. From Ext.P1 result sheet, it would appear that respondents 5 and 6 were awarded Rank 1 and 2. Being aggrieved, the petitioner, along with her friend, preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent, without appreciating the facts and circumstances and the merit of the contentions, dismissed the appeal by Ext.P2 order. 2. The petitioner asserts that the School Sasthrolsavam Manual, 2022-2023 issued by the Government, as per which only the 1st prize A Grade winner is entitled to participate in the Kerala State School Sasthrolsavam 2022-23. It is in the afore circumstances that this writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P2 order by which the petitioner’s entitlement to participate in the Kerala State School Sasthrolsavam 2022-23 in the event ‘Still Model’ was rejected. The petitioner has also sought a declaration that the Rule in the Manual issued by the Government in so far as it permits the ‘A’ Grade Winner to 4 W.P. (C) No.36074 of 2022 participate in the Kerala State School Sasthrolsavam is arbitrary and cannot be sustained. . 3. Sri.B.Mohanlal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, points out that the judges of the school level or the appellate judges are not qualified or competent to assess the performance of the students. According to the learned counsel, the ‘Still Model’ presented by the petitioner and her friend was by far the best and they were entitled to get higher grades. 4. The learned Government Pleader has vehemently opposed the prayer, and it is submitted that in terms of the manual, the stills were evaluated by experts in the field. While carrying out the evaluation, the evaluators have taken note of the creativity and originality of the theme, the quality of the composition, the overall design and various other factors. It is submitted that the students who secure higher marks had obtained much more points than the petitioner and it was in the said circumstances that they were graded much higher. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced. I find that the petitioner is before this Court complaining that the marks awarded by the Judges to him were much lower than what he deserved. The evaluation of a pattern may depend upon various factors and criteria, and this Court is not 5 W.P. (C) No.36074 of 2022 equipped to decide the marks which are to be awarded. The models of the students who had secured higher grades are also not before this Court, and it is next to impossible to display all of them together and to re-adjudicate the same. Furthermore, except for stating that the Judges had not awarded proper marks, no other reason is stated. 6. The Apex Court has held time and time again that the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of the actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view, as opposed to a pragmatic one, were to be propounded (See **Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Ors.** [(1984) 4 SCC 27]. 7. I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference. The Court has no expertise in the matter, and these are matters which are best left to the experts in the field. I do not think that it would be 6 W.P. (C) No.36074 of 2022 proper for this Court to issue directions to the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the next level. This writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** Sru 7 W.P. (C) No.36074 of 2022 ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36074/2022` ``` PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: ``` ``` Exhibit P1 ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT REPORT OF KOLLAM DISTRICT SCHOOL SHASTHROLSAVAM 2022-23 ‘STILL MODEL’ PUBLISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. ``` - `Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C2/2015/2022(9) DATED 5.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATE OF THE STATE SCHOOL SASTHROLSAVAM FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 THROUGH THE STUDENT MUZAFFIR S FOR THE EVENT STILL MODEL.` - `Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATE OF THE STATE SCHOOL SASTHROLSAVAM FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 THROUGH THE STUDENT MUZAFFIR S FOR THE EVENT STILL MODEL.` - `Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATE OF THE STATE SCHOOL SASTHROLSAVAM FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 THROUGH THE STUDENT ABHISHEK C.R FOR THE EVENT STILL MODEL.` - `Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE` - `INSTALLATION OF STILL MODEL OF THE PETITIONER’S TEAM PRODUCED IN THE KOLLAM DISTRICT SCHOOL SASTHROLSAVAM 2022-23.` - `Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IMAGES OF THE VARIOUS EXISTING LOCATIONS DEPICTED IN EXT.P6` ``` INSTALLATION OF STILL MODEL OF THE PETITIONER’S TEAM PRODUCED IN THE KOLLAM DISTRICT SCHOOL SASTHROLSAVAM 2022-23. ``` ``` Exhibit P8THE TRUE COPY OF THE IMAGES OF THE VARIOUS EXISTING LOCATIONS DEPICTED IN EXT.P6 ``` 8 W.P. (C) No.36074 of 2022 ``` INSTALLATION OF STILL MODEL OF THE PETITIONER’S TEAM PRODUCED IN THE KOLLAM DISTRICT SCHOOL SASTHROLSAVAM 2022-23. ``` ``` RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL ```