High Court Kerala High Court

Namitha Thomas(Minor) vs The Director Of Higher Secondary on 14 January, 2008

Kerala High Court
Namitha Thomas(Minor) vs The Director Of Higher Secondary on 14 January, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 1653 of 2008(V)


1. NAMITHA THOMAS(MINOR),
                      ...  Petitioner
2. PARVATHY K.S.(MINOR),

                        Vs



1. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

3. THE APPEAL COMMITTEE,

4. THE PRINCIPAL,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :14/01/2008

 O R D E R
                             ANTONY DOMINIC, J.



                   = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                       W.P.(C) No. 1653  OF 2008 V

                   = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =



                    Dated this the  14 th January, 2008



                                J U D G M E N T

The participants in the drama competition at the District

Higher Secondary School Youth Festival has filed this writ petition

challenging Ext. P1. Ext. P1 is the decision rendered by the appeal

committee rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioners against the

assessment of their performance by the judges. T

2. The petitioners have raised the plea that there was

intermittent power failure, that the microphone was not working

properly and complained that one of the actors suffered a nail

injury. On these reasons petitioners submit that their performance

was affected and consequentially assessment of performance is also

erroneous.

3. A reading of Ext. P1 shows that the judges have given

proper reasons for the assessment of the petitioners’ performances.

It is stated in Ext. P1 that music was given undue importance and

WPC No. 1653/08

– 2 –

that the drama was not properly presented. According to them it

was only on account of the improper presentation of the drama and

the undue importance that was given to the music the petitioners

could not achieve the desired position. In view of the valid reasons

that are given in Ext. P1 order of the appeal committee I do not

think that the petitioners have made out a case for interference.

Writ petition fails and is dismissed.

ANTONY DOMINIC

JUDGE

jan/-