IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 612 of 2011(B)
1. VINAYAN P., CONVENER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
3. THE CONVENER,
4. THE CONVENER,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :10/01/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 612 OF 2011
=====================
Dated this the 10th day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
In the Parappanangadi Sub District Level Kalolsavam,
petitioner’s team participated in Drama Competition. They were
awarded 3rd prize. Petitioner filed an appeal complaining that the
venue was changed at the last minute and that the sound system
was not proper. It was also complained that there was power
failure affecting their performance. Despite the contentions, his
appeal was rejected without considering any of the grounds as
per Ext.P2 order. It is challenging Ext.P2 and seeking a direction
to permit the petitioner’s team to participate in the Revenue
District Competition, the writ petition is filed.
2. Learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions
in the matter. According to the learned Government Pleader, the
first and second prize winners had secured 251 and 225 marks
respectively, whereas the petitioner’s team had secured only 198
marks. As far as the allegation regarding power failure is
concerned, learned Government Pleader submits that a report
was obtained from the Stage Manager, who has denied the said
WPC No. 612/11
:2 :
allegation. In so far as the change of venue is concerned, learned
Government Pleader submits that due to the circumstances
prevailing, such a stage was necessitated and that among the five
contestants, nobody other than the petitioner had raised any
complaint in that behalf.
3. First of all, there is vide disparity in the marks obtained
by the petitioner’s team as compared to first and second prize
winners. Secondly, first and second prize winners who will be
prejudiced by any order obtained by the petitioner have not been
impleaded in this writ petition. Thirdly, the allegation of power
failure put forward by the petitioner has been denied by the
respondents and there is nothing to reject the said version. That
apart, even if there was change of venue, since no other
participant has complained about it and as no prejudice, special
to the petitioner, could have been caused, I see no reason to
interfere.
Writ petition is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp