IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 38798 of 2010(Y)
1. MIGHA SHAJAN, AGED 17 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. AMEEMA ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 17 YEARS,
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE,
3. THE CHAIRMAN, ORGANIZING COMMITTEE,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.B.PRAJITH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :03/01/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 38798 OF 2010
=====================
Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners participated in the Trichur District Schools
Science, Mathematics and Social Science Fair 2010-11. The
product exhibited by the petitioners was an amphy cycle, which
can be used both in water and land. According to the petitioners,
they were awarded third prize with C Grade. Aggrieved by the
prize given, they filed Ext.P14 appeal and that was rejected by
Ext.P15. It is challenging Ext.P15 and seeking a direction to the
respondents to permit the petitioners to participate in the State
Level Competition, the writ petition is filed.
2. The first contention raised by the counsel for the
petitioners is that the first and second prize winners downloaded
the details of the product exhibited by them from the internet and
therefore their products lacked originality. It is stated that
therefore their products ought not have been given any prize at
all.
3. First of all, in my view, in the absence of having
impleaded the two persons against whom allegations are levelled
WPC No. 38798/10
:2 :
as parties in this writ petition, contention that the product
exhibited by them lacked originality, cannot be appreciated.
4. The second contention raised by the petitioners is that
the manual prescribes the quorum for considering the appeal filed
by the petitioners. It is stated that Ext.P15 shows that the appeal
was considered only by the Chairman. However, as rightly
pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, Ext.P15 is only
an order issued by the Chairman communicating the decision of
the Appellate Committee and therefore Ext.P15 does not mean
that the appeal was considered by the Chairman himself. It is
also pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the
average mark secured by the first prize winner was 81, second
prize winner 73, third prize winner 62.3 and the petitioners 53. In
view of the vide disparity in the marks secured also, I am not
persuaded to interfere with the matter.
Writ petition is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp