IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 1147 of 2008(J)
1. VISHNU PRIYA(MINOR), AGED 14 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. GENERAL CONVENOR,
5. MAHALAKSHMI(MINOR)STUDENT,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :10/01/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 1147 OF 2008 J
=====================
Dated this the 10th day of January, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was a participant in the Mohiniyattam, in
which she has secured second prize with A grade. It is stated
that aggrieved by the ranking, she filed and appeal, however the
result of the appeal has not been communicated. It is on that
premise this writ petition has been filed praying for an order
permitting her to participate in the State School Youth Festival
Competition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contend that
appeal has not been disposed of even as of now.
2. Learned Government pleader on instructions submits
that appeal has been considered and the same has been rejected.
It is also pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that all
the three judges have uniformly assessed first prize winner to be
superior to the petitioner and that the difference in the total
WPC 1147/08
:2 :
marks is only three.
3. Yet another contention raised by the petitioner is
regarding the partiality of the judges. It is contended that the 5th
respondent has secured first prize. It is submitted that the
instructor of the 5th respondent was the colleague of one of the
judges and therefore the judge had favoured the 5th respondent.
This is a wild submission and I am not prepared to take it at its
face value. The fact that an instructor and a judge were
colleagues by itself does not lead to an inference touching open
the impartiality of the judge concerned. In the absence of any
materials, this argument is only to be stated and rejected.
4. Yet another contention that was raised was during the
course of the performance, the child in question had suffered an
injury and that affected her performance. It is stated that the
authorities ought to have provided a safe stage for the
performance of the child and that in the absence of which, the
child cannot be faulted even if the performance was not up to the
mark. I am not prepared to accept this contention either. If the
child had infact suffered an injury as contended by the petitioner,
WPC 1147/08
:3 :
they could have asked for yet another opportunity to prove their
merit and this has not been done and on the other hand, the
petitioner opted to continue the performance. Therefore, they
cannot be allowed to turn around and contend that the injury has
affected her performance.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
Rp