High Court Kerala High Court

Rohit N.Ajayan (Minor) vs Deputy Director Of Education on 9 January, 2008

Kerala High Court
Rohit N.Ajayan (Minor) vs Deputy Director Of Education on 9 January, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 1136 of 2008(I)


1. ROHIT N.AJAYAN (MINOR), AGED 14,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
                       ...       Respondent

2. GENERAL CONVENOR,

3. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.SANTHOSH  (PODUVAL)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :09/01/2008

 O R D E R
                         ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
             ------------------------------------
                        W.P.(C) 1136 of 2008
             -------------------------------------
                        Dated: January 9, 2008

                              JUDGMENT

Petitioner was a contestant in the Revenue District Youth

Festival in Kuchipudi and Folk Dance. In both these items she was

given 2nd prize with A grade. According to the petitioner, the judges

were unfamiliar with the items performed and that resulted in wrong

assessment of performance.

2. From paragraph 6 of the petition it is seen pleaded that the

judges were qualified in Ottamthullal, Bharatanatyam and

Mohiniyattam. If that be so, one cannot contend that they were

unqualified at all. It is also clear from the submission made by the

learned Government Pleader that all the three judges have uniformly

assessed the 1st prize winner as much better than the petitioner.

The 1st prize winner is seen to have secured 245 marks in Kuchipudi

whereas the petitioner had obtained only 242 marks. Similarly in

folk dance also, while the 1st prize winner got 249 marks, the

petitioner got only 241 marks.

WP(C) 1136/2008
Page numbers

3. In view of this I can only uphold the assessment of

performance by the judges.

3. The petitioner has also made reference to Exts.P1to P5

and contended that in the past he has always been assessed as a

Kalaprathibha and winner in other competitions. That by itself

cannot be a reason to conclude that the assessment of performance

this year vitiated.

I do not find any merit in this petition. It is accordingly

dismissed.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

mt/-