IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 37585 of 2007(Y)
1. ANURAG SANKAR,ST.GEORGE.H.S,ARAKUNNAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
3. THE GENERAL CONVENER,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
4. SREEKUMAR, KERALA KATHAKALI CENTRE,
5. NANDAKUMAR R., MPMEM HS, KARNAKODAM,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOMY GEORGE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :01/01/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= =W.P.(C) = =37585=OF= = = = =
= = =No. = = =
2007 Y
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 1st January, 2008
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed praying for a direction to respondents
1 to 3 to allow the petitioner to participate in the Ernakulam District
Level School Kalolsavam, 2007-08. Petitioner was a participant in
Thayambaka.
2. According to the petitioner out of the three judges who
evaluated his performance, two have granted first place to him.
However, the 3rd judge did not rate the petitioner as the other
judges did. Petitioner submits that the 3rd judge had an axe to
grind against the petitioner. That, according to him, was for the
reason that the 4th respondent, the 3rd judge, had offered to train
the petitioner, but it was politely refused by his father. For that
reason, the petitioner submits that the 4th respondent felt heartburn
and this feeling of the 4th respondent reflected in his assessment of
the petitioner’s performance.
WPC No. 37585/07 -2-
3. Petitioner had filed Ext. P1 appeal against the assessment
by the judges and that appeal has also been rejected by Ext. P2. It
is in this background the writ petition has been filed.
4. It may be true that the two judges have ranked the
petitioner in a manner different from the 3rd judge. But that by itself
is not a reason to infer any malafides on the part of the 3rd judge.
The only ground on which the petitioner impugns his assessment is
that the 3rd judge had an ill-feeling against the petitioner. However,
this ground of malafides was not urged by the petitioner in Ext. P1
appeal filed before the appellate committee. If the petitioner had
any apprehension based on the malafides of the 4th respondent, the
petitioner would certainly have urged that ground in the appeal.
This having not been done, I am inclined to think that the ground of
malafides now urged by the petitioner is clearly an afterthought.
5. On going through Ext. P2 decision by the appellate
committee I notice that the committee has considered the complaint
of the petitioner and also the assessment made by the judges. On
such evaluation the appellate committee has found that the
assessment of the petitioner’s performance by the judges cannot be
doubted for any reason and it is on that basis the appeal has been
WPC No. 37585/07 -3-
rejected. There is absolutely any material or any reason to take a
view different from that of the appellate committee.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-