Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE21T DAY OF MAY2014/31ST VAISAKHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 563 of 2014 (U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S) : -------------------------- 1. KUMARI JEYMA JAMES, AGED17YEARS, (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER JAMES N.J.
AGED50YEARS, S/O.JACOB, NEELANKAVIL HOUSE PAVARATTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2. KUMARI JOSENI ROSE E.G., AGED17YEARS (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER E.K.GEORGE S/O.KURIAKOSE, EDAKKALATHUR HOUSE, MATTAM P.O. THRISSUR. BY ADVS.SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN SMT.MINI.V.A. SRI.JESWIN JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S) : ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE HIGHER APPEAL COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON (ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM). KERALA SCHOOL SASTHRA/GANITHA SASTHRA/SOCIAL SCIENCE WORK EXPERIENCE/IT FAIR AND EXPO201314, KANNUR. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.K. SHERIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2105-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 563 of 2014 (U) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : ------------------------------------- EXT. P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
DATED1611.2013 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE OF THRISSUR REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL SASTHRA/GANITHA SASTHRA/SOCIAL SCIENCE, WORK EXPERIENCE/IT FAIR AND EXPO201314. EXT. P2- TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE MOBILE ALKALINE HYDROLYSIS UNIT EXHIBITED BY THE PETITIONERS' DAUGHTERS. EXT. P3- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE PARTICIPANTS BOTH IN MALAYALAM AND ENGLISH. EXT. P4- TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED2311.2013 ISSUED BY THE1T RESPONDENT. EXT. P5- TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MANUAL OF THE SCIENCE FAIR AND EXPO. EXT. P6- TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED2711.2013 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS' DAUGHTERS BEFORE THE2D RESPONDENT. EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
DATED2811.2013 OF THE2D RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------------------------------------ //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn A.M. Shaffique, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 563 of 2014 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 21st day of May, 2014.
JUDGMENT
Petitioners challenge Ext. P7 order passed by the appellate authority with reference to 'still model' submitted by the petitioners.
2. The facts involved in the case would disclose that the petitioner had submitted a 'still model' for approval in the State level. The same was termed as Mobile Alkaline Hydrolysis Unit, which is a substitution of conventional method of burial of dead bodies. The model was not approved by the judging committee. Petitioners had a complaint that the judging committee did not make any queries to the students and they did not take any pain to attend the functioning of the unit and had wrongfully rejected the said model. If the petitioners' model had been approved, they would be entitled to certain grace marks. Though an appeal was filed, the same came to be rejected also. The appeal was decided by a committee consisting of three persons and they formed an opinion that on examination of the appeal along with the score sheet and other connected papers, they had unanimously held that there was no merit in the appeal. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that the judging committee had not taken any pain to verify the functioning of the model and W.P(C) No. 563 of 2014 -:
2. :- no questions were asked to the students concerned.
3. The matter is a technical issue, which had been gone into by the judging committee as well as the appellate authority. This Court cannot sit in judgment in respect of the decision taken by them. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no specific reason had been given by the appellate authority for rejecting the appeal, having regard to the nature of the issue involved in the matter, especially with reference to the question as to whether a model has to be approved or not, I do not think that any further material is required to be placed on record by the appellate authority to decide the issue and any further reason is to be stated. They had already indicated their view after referring to the memorandum of appeal as also the score sheet and connected documents in detail. I do not think that there is any further scope for any judicial review with reference to to the orders passed at Ext. P7 and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge. Tds/