IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 92 of 2008(J)
1. SREELAKSHMI(MINOR), D/O M.K.MADHU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION IDUKKI,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
4. THE GENERAL CONVENER,
5. THE GENERAL CONVENER,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOICE GEORGE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :02/01/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C) 92 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated: January 2, 2008
JUDGMENT
Although the petitioner has challenged Exts.P11 and P12, in
view of the fact that Kuchippudi, the item covered by Ext.P11 is
already over, submissions are confined to Ext.P12.
2. Petitioner was a participant of Folk Dance also in which she
was assigned second rank with A Grade. It was aggrieved by the
ranking so given that she had filed Ext.P4 appeal and that resulted
in Ext.P12 order. In the writ petition, in paragraph 3, it is stated
that the petitioner could not perform well because of an injury
sustained by her from the stage due to poor stage management. In
so far as this plea of the petitioner is concerned, it is stated in
Ext.P12 that the stage manager had given a report that there has
not been any such accident. It is also stated in Ext.P12 that of the
three judges, two had given the first rank holder higher ranking
than the petitioner and the difference between the petitioner and
the 1st rank holder is 8 marks. It is stated that it is on evaluation of
WP(C) 92/2008
Page numbers
the performance of the petitioner that she has been suitably ranked.
On these reasonings, the Appellate Authority declined to interfere
with the assessment. Petitioner has not produced any material to
suggest that the evaluation of the judges or the appellate body is
vitiated. Ext.P12 is a well reasoned order and I do not find any
perversity in it.
Writ petition is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
mt/-