High Court Kerala High Court

Sree Lakshmi.S vs The Principal on 11 February, 2009

Kerala High Court
Sree Lakshmi.S vs The Principal on 11 February, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 4445 of 2009(D)


1. SREE LAKSHMI.S, D/O. A.R. SUBRAMANIAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE PRINCIPAL,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE PROGRAMME COMMITTEE CONVENER,

3. THE GENERAL CONVENER,

4. THE GENERAL CONVENER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :11/02/2009

 O R D E R
                         ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                    -------------------------
                      W.P.(C.) No.4445 of 2009
              ---------------------------------
             Dated, this the 11th day of February, 2009

                            J U D G M E N T

In the Calicut University B Zone Arts Festival, the petitioner had

participated in Kuchippudi and Folk Dance competitions. For

Kuchippudi, she was given third prize and for Folk Dance, 2nd prize.

Aggrieved by the prizes that were given, she filed Exts.P1 & P2

appeals. These appeals have been rejected by the appellate

committee as per Exts.P3 & P4. It is challenging the appellate

orders, and praying that she be given the 1st prize, the writ petition

is filed.

2. First of all, it is to be noticed that both the first prize

winners in the respective items have not been impleaded in the writ

petition, and therefore, any order disturbing their position cannot be

passed in this writ petition. Even otherwise, though personal

allegations have been made against the judges, they also are not

parties in the writ petition. That apart, I also noticed that even in

Exts.P1 & P2 appeals filed, the grounds urged in the writ petition

have not been taken.

WP(C) No.4445/2009
-2-

3. Therefore, in these circumstances, I cannot find any

material to hold that either the assessment of the performance by

the Judges or the decision rendered by the appellate committee is

erroneous warranting interference.

The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg