IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 715 of 2010(L)
1. ANDRA RAVI (MINOR, AGED 14 YEARS)
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
3. THE CONVENOR, STATE SCHOOL
4. CHAIRPERSON, APPEAL COMMITTEE,
5. THE CONVENOR, DISTRICT SCHOOL
For Petitioner :SRI.BIJU MARTIN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :08/01/2010
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 715 of 2010-l
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a student of Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School,
Ernakulam. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of her appeal by
the 4th respondent in the District School Kalolsavam 2009-2010 and
consequential denial to her team in participating the State level School
Kalolsavam 2009-2010. It is the case of the petitioner that even though
her team performed well in the competition, her team was awarded with 5th
prize with A grade. It is submitted that the entire audience comprising of
several eminent experts were of the opinion that the petitioner’s team should
have been given first prize. The petitioner’s request for giving details of first
and second prize winners, was not also considered. The petitioner has
produced various photographs and other details in support of her plea. It is
the complaint of the petitioner that the judging committee did not examine
the performance of the petitioner and her team. But the team which has
got first prize, committed several mistakes that was explained in the appeal.
Ext.P7 is the order passed in the appeal.
2. Learned Govt. Pleader on instructions, submitted that there is a
wpc 715/2010 2
difference of 17 marks between the petitioner’s team and the team which
has got the first place. A reading of Ext.P7 shows that the appeal
committee has considered all the contentions raised by the petitioner and
entered a finding that there is no merit in the said contentions.
3. This Court will not be justified in interfering with the result of the
competition on the basis of the allegations raised by the petitioner which are
general in nature. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/