IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37575 of 2010(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- RASLA.V.R,AGED 17 YEARS, VALIYAVEETTIL,ERIYAD,KODUNGALLOOR , REP.BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND P.A.FAZEELATH, W/O.RASHEED, VALIYAVEETTIL,ERIYAD,KODUNGALLOOR. BY ADVS. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN ABRAHAM M. GEORGE SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.G.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATATION AND THE GENERAL CONVENER ,SCIENCE -MATHEMATICS- SOCIAL SCIENCE-WORK EXPERIENCE-IT FESTIVAL 2010-11 THRISSUR REVENUE DISTRICT,OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OF EDUCATION,THRISSUR. 2. THE APPEAL COMMITTEE OF SCIENCE- MATHEMATICS- SOCIAL SCIENCE-WORK EXPERIENCE-IT FESTIVAL 2010-11,REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,THRISSUR. 3. JEFINY.C,AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,LITTLE FLOWER CONVENT HIGH SECONDARY SCHOOL,MAMMIYOOR,CHAVAKAD. 4. ANJANA JOSE,AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,ST.JOSEPH'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,PAVARATTY. R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 37575 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner participated in the Revenue District level Science-Mathematics-Social Science-Work Experience-IT Festival 2009-10. This festival was held from 13.12.2010 to 15.12.2010. She participated in the item Craft-Fibre work and using the plantain fibre, she made a Hand Bag. It is stated that respondents 3 and 4, who made Pot Hanger, were given the 1st and 2nd prizes and the petitioner was not given any prize. 2. Case of the petitioner is that though under Ext.P5 Manual, she was entitled to file an appeal, her appeal was not even accepted. It is also alleged that as per the provisions of Ext.P5 Manual, marks are to be awarded based on utility of the product made and that if marks were so awarded, the prize could have been denied to the petitioner. It is on this basis the writ petition filed. 3. The learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions in the matter. According to the learned Government Pleader 30 appeals were received and that all the 30 appeals were entertained. It is stated that no appeal was preferred by the W.P.(C).No. 37575 OF 2010 2 petitioner. It is also contended that marks were awarded strictly complying with the provisions of the Manual and that the case of the petitioner to the contrary is incorrect. 4. As far as the case of the petitioner, regarding the alleged refusal to accept the appeal is concerned, first of all there is nothing to substantiate her contention that appeal was refused to be accepted. Secondly, if 30 appeals were accepted, there is no reason to think that the appeal of the petitioner alone was refused to be accepted. Therefore, on the material available, I am not persuaded to accept the case of the petitioner that appeal was refused to be accepted by the appellate committee. 5. As far as the awarding of marks is concerned, the Manual lay down the method in which the marks are to be awarded applying different criteria. While, the petitioner made a Hand Bag, according to the petitioner, respondents 3 and 4 made Pot Hanger. Pot Hanger is certainly a useful product and as in the case of Hand Bag, marks are liable to be awarded to Pot Hanger also. In such a case, if the product made by the respondents was found to be superior and marks were awarded on that basis, this Court will not be justified in concluding that such a decision of the W.P.(C).No. 37575 OF 2010 3 Judges is perverse, warranting interference in the writ petition. 6. Further, in matters of this nature, unless strong evidence is placed by candidate impugning decision of the Judges, this Court should not interfere with the decision taken by the experts. In this case, apart from the averments in the writ petition, nothing has been placed by the petitioner to substantiate the petitioner's contentions. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE dmb