Ker HC | Determining eligibility of students to participate in school event, not a matter where Courts would exercise extraordinary jurisdiction

Kerala High Court: Anu Sivaraman, J. dismissed a writ petition filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents to allow her to participate in the item ‘Folk Dance’ in the State Kalotsav for CBSE Schools.

The petitioner, who is a student of a CBSE School had secured an ‘A’ Grade and a second prize in Folk Dance in a District Level competition. Going by the Manual with regard to the conduct of CBSE Kalotsav, it was clearly specified that the top two positions at the District Level competition will be eligible to participate in the State Level Kalotsav. However, only the two first place holders were permitted to participate and the petitioner was included only on the waiting list. The petitioner contended that she had secured the second prize and was, therefore, entitled to participate in the State Level Kalotsav. She contended that this was against the provisions of the Manual and she should be permitted to participate in the State Level Kalotsav. The respondent argued that that Kalotsav was conducted by the Confederation of Sahodhaya Schools and that the CBSE had no role in the actual conduct of the Kalotsav.

The issue raised in the present case was with regard to the conduct of a State Level Kalotsav for students of CBSE Schools. The Manual had all the guidelines issued for the conduct of the Kalotsav.

The Court, therefore, held that the issue with regard to the participation of students in a School Level Kalotsav is not a matter which was liable to be considered by the Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, it was clear that the Manual was not a binding statutory guideline which would permit the petitioner to approach the Court complaining of a violation of the same. The Manual was only a guideline issued with regard to the conduct of Kalotsav and even in case there was a violation of the same, no writ would lie for enforcement of the same. The Court went on to state that this matter did not require any interference from their side in exercise of its powers of judicial review. [Aiswarya P v. Convenor, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 4370, decided on 13-11-2019]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.