- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
SREENANDHA SAJEENDRAN v. DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
2025:KER:31
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 13TH POUSHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 46338 OF 2024
PETITIONER(S)
SREENANDHA SAJEENDRAN
AGED 16 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY MOTHER REENA SAJEENDRAN, AGED 42YEARS, WIFE
OF SAJEENDRAN, KAVUVILAYIL VEEDU, NEAR TOWN HALL, ATTINGAL P
O, ATTINGAL PART, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695101
BY ADV. MIRAL K.JOY
RESPONDENT(S):
1 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
O/O THE DIRECTOR OG GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
2 KALOLSAVAM COMMITTEE CONVENER
ADDITITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
3 DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER
THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, GPO LN, NEAR TESRO, STSTUE,
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 CHAIRMAN APPEAL COMMITTEE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, O/O THE DEPUTY DECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695036
BY ADV. VENUGOPAL V. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
1
- 2 -
C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
======================= W.P.(C.) No.46338 of 2024 ======================== Dated this the 03rd day of January, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was a contestant in the item 'Kuchipudi' from Thiruvananthapuram District. She could secure only the 5thposition with A grade. The grievance espoused is that the competition was conducted in an open ground, which is very close to the parking ground of the vehicles, as a result of which, there was huge dust in and around the stage premises. The petitioner being chronically asthmatic, could not perform to her full extent. Immediately after the event, the petitioner gave a complaint specifically espousing these aspects and also stating that the songs could not be heard clearly due to the vehicles plying. However, without referring to any of those allegations, Ext.P2 order has been passed by the Appellate Authority, is the argument. Learned Counsel would also point out that, as
- 3 -
many as four appeals, including the appeal by the person who secured the 6thposition, were allowed by the Appellate Authority.
2. Learned Government Pleader would submit that, Ext.P2 would reflect that the video, as also, the score sheet were examined by the Appellate Authority to arrive at the finding that the appeal need not be allowed.
3. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court is inclined to allow the instant writ petition. This Court primarily notice that the cause espoused is one rooted on a humanitarian ground, that is to say, an asthmatic/allergic situation of the petitioner, which was flared up due to the venue chosen by the organizers of the programme. It is notdenied that the venue was close to the vehicles parking ground and the vehicles were plying, creating lot of dust. The genuineness of the petitioner's grievance is clear from Ext.P1 preferred immediately
- 4 -
after the event, wherein it is stated that there were enough dust in the stage and that she could not perform to her full extent, due to dust allergy. This aspect has not been considered in Ext.P2 order of the Appellate Authority. This Court also takes note of the fact that an appeal preferred by the person who obtained the 6thposition has already been allowed by the Appellate Authority. If that be so, there exists no reason to deny an opportunity to the present petitioner to contest in the State Kalolsavam.
In such circumstances, this writ petition is allowed, with a direction to permit the petitioner to contest in the State Kalolsavam, along with other successful candidates.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
NB/3-1
Alert