High Court Kerala High Court

Meharunnissa P.S vs State Of Kerala on 10 December, 2010

Kerala High Court
Meharunnissa P.S vs State Of Kerala on 10 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 36837 of 2010(D)


1. MEHARUNNISSA P.S.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,

3. THE CONVENER,

4. CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE,

5. THE CONVENER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BIJU MARTIN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :10/12/2010

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

             ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                 W.P.(C) No. 36837 of 2010 D
             ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
          Dated this the 10th day of December, 2010

                            J U D G M E N T

Petitioner’s team has participated in the Sub

District School Kalolsavam 2010-2011 in the item ‘Oppana’.

They were given the second prize. Aggrieved by the above,

petitioner filed Ext.P5 appeal, which was rejected by Ext.P6.

It is challenging Ext.P6, the writ petition is filed.

2. Contention raised is that the grounds raised in

Ext.P5 were not properly considered by the appellate

committee. First of all, it is pointed out by the learned

Government Pleader that the first place winner had secured

268 points and the petitioner had only 252. According to the

learned Government Pleader, the appellate committee

examined the contentions and found them to be devoid of

merits and it was therefore rejected.

3. A reading of Ext.P5 shows that the petitioner did

complain that a participant got injured and that due to the

W.P.(C) No.36837/10
: 2 :

improper arrangement of the stage they could not perform

well. This grievance was considered by the appellate

committee and they did not find any merit in it. Even

otherwise petitioner has not produced any material to

substantiate the contention, in which event only, this Court

can find Ext.P6 order erroneous. In the absence of such

materials, I do not think this Court will be justified in interfering

with Ext.P6. Even otherwise by any order passed in the writ

petition the existing first prize winner will be affected and the

first prize winner is not a party to the writ petition.

4. For these reasons, I am not persuaded to pass any

order in the writ petition.

Writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks

// True Copy //

P.A. To Judge