High Court Kerala High Court

Groovy Sathyan vs The Director Of Public … on 7 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Groovy Sathyan vs The Director Of Public … on 7 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 456 of 2010(F)


1. GROOVY SATHYAN, 15 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (DPI)
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,

3. ARCHITHA ANEESH KUMAR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.C.JAMES

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :07/01/2010

 O R D E R
                 T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
               ---------------------------------------
                     W.P.(C) No.456 OF 2010
                ---------------------------------------
            Dated this the 7th day of January, 2010.


                          J U D G M E N T

In this case the petitioner is a student of 10th standard in

Ramijai HSS, Nirmalagiri in Kuthuparamba. The petitioner is

aggrieved by the rejection of appeal filed in connection with the

District level youth festival.

2. The petitioner was a participant in the item Mohiniyattam

in the District level youth festival held on 31.12.2009. Since

there was disruption of power supply, the petitioner requested for

re-play of the item but that was not allowed and was placed in A

grade. An appeal was filed alleging interruption of power supply

which stands rejected and aggrieved by the same, this writ

petition has been filed. It is pointed out by the learned counsel

for the petitioner that the appeal has been rejected without any

justification.

It is seen from the averments in the writ petition and the

order passed in appeal which is submitted before me for perusal

W.P.(C) No.456/2010 2

by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is substantial

variation of marks between the first winner and the petitioner.

Even though allegations have been made with regard to the

award of marks, I am not satisfied that the matter requires

interference by this Court at this stage especially since the appeal

committee could not find any infirmity. This Court sitting in

Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not be justified in

interfering in a matter like this. Therefore, this writ petition is

dismissed.

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE

smp