Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Nitha Vs. the State of Kerala

Nitha vs The State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 23, 2014
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1125762

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nitha

Respondent

The State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....judgment the petitioners were the participants in 'margam kali' (girls) competition held on 04.12.2013 in the malappuram revenue district level school kalolsavam. according to the petitioner, though the petitioner's team performed well, after evaluation they were awarded only the 4th place; which according to the petitioner is not correct and hence an appeal was preferred and that the judges were biased. but the appeal was dismissed as borne by ext. p7, which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.2. heard the learned government pleader as well, who submits that there is absolutely no pith or substance in the averments raised in the writ petition. it is pointed out that the first prize winner got 255 marks , whereas the petitioner [who is placed at 4th] could secure only 216 marks and as such, there is a substantial margin of 39 marks. it is pointed out that the merit rating was done w.p.(c) no. 2229 of 2014(c) 2 meticulously and that the appeal was rejected after viewing the video recording.3. considering the facts and circumstances, this court finds that there is no tenable ground. interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed. sd/- p.r.ramachandra menon, judge amv

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE23D DAY OF JANUARY20143RD MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 2229 of 2014 (C) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S) : ---------------------- 1. NITHA V., AGED17YEARS, PLUS ONE STUDENT, MSP HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL MALAPPURAM, MINOR REPRESENTED BY FATHERSADANANDAN VALIYATHRA HOUSE, THAMARAKAUZHI, MALAPPURAM MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

2. KAVERI PRASAD, AGED17YEARS, PLUS TWO STUDENT, MSP HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL MALAPPURAM, MINOR REPRESENTED BY FATHERR.K.PRASAD "PRASADAM", KAVUNGAL, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.P.SAMSUDIN SMT.NIMA JACOB SRI.K.C.ANTONY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S) : ------------------------- 1. THE STATEOF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (PROGRAM COMMITTEE CONVENER AND CHAIRMAN APPEAL COMMITTEE, REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM MALAPPURAM REVENUE DISTRICT) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION MALAPPURAM-676 505.

3. GENERAL CONVENER, STATESCHOOL KALOLSAVAM GOVERNMENT MOYAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL PALAKKAD-678 001.

4. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

5. SIVANI RAMESH, PLUS ONE STUDENT ST.JEMMAS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL MALAPPURAM-676 505 MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER RAMESH RESIDING "SIVANI", UPHILL, MALAPPURAM676505 BY SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2301-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AMV :

2. : WP(C).No. 2229 of 2014 (C) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : ------------------------------------- EXT.P1 - : COPY OF THE MERIT CERTIFICATE DATED201-2013 ISSUED TO THE1T PETITIONER IN THE53D KERALA STATESCHOOL KALOLSAVAM EXT.P2 - : COPY OF THE MERIT CERTIFICATE DATED2001-2013 ISSUED TO NANDITHA DAS IN THE53D KERALA STATESCHOOL KALOLSAAM. EXT.P3 -: COPY OF THE MERIT CERTIFICATE DATED2001-2013 ISSUED TO DRISYAVM IN THE53D KERALA STATESCHOOL KALOLSAVAM. EXT.P4 - : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION ISSUED TO THE2D PETITIONER IN THE CBSE STATEKALOLSAVAM. EXT.P5 - : PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE TEAM. EXT.P6 - : COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXT.P7 - : COPY OF THE ORDER

NO.C2/17989/2013 DATED131-2014 PASSED BY THE2D RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE AMV P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

--------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 2229 of 2014 (C) ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2014 JUDGMENT

The petitioners were the participants in 'Margam Kali' (Girls) competition held on 04.12.2013 in the Malappuram Revenue District level School Kalolsavam. According to the petitioner, though the petitioner's team performed well, after evaluation they were awarded only the 4th place; which according to the petitioner is not correct and hence an appeal was preferred and that the Judges were biased. But the appeal was dismissed as borne by Ext. P7, which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that there is absolutely no pith or substance in the averments raised in the writ petition. It is pointed out that the first prize winner got 255 marks , whereas the petitioner [who is placed at 4th] could secure only 216 marks and as such, there is a substantial margin of 39 marks. It is pointed out that the merit rating was done W.P.(C) NO. 2229 of 2014(C) 2 meticulously and that the appeal was rejected after viewing the video recording.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that there is no tenable ground. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed. sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE AMV

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial