IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1449 of 2011(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. SACRED HEART HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL PARENT- TEACHER ASSOCIATION, REP. BYIS PRESIDENT, SRI.HAMEEDKUNJU S/O ABDUL RAHMAN KUNJU, AGED 49, SACRED HEART HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL THEVARA, KOCHI 13. 2. GOUTHAM B.DAS AGED 14 S/O BHAGAVAL DAS SACRED HEART HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL THEVARA REPRESENTED BY THE FATHER AND GUARDIAN BHAGAWAL DAS S/O BHARGAVAN, PALACKAPARAMBIL, THEVARA COLONY, KOCHI-13. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. GENERAL CONVENOR AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, ALL KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM, TRIVANDRUM 695001. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM APPEAL COMMITTEE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, TRIKKAKKARA, CIVIL STATION, KOCHI 30. 3. C.C.P.L.M.ANGLO INDIAN HIGH SCHOOL, PERUMANOOR, KOCHI-13. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 1449 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T In the Ernakulam Sub District Level Kalolsavam, teams of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent participated in the item Bandmelam. Petitioner came out first and the 3rd respondent secured second prize. Against the second prize given, 3rd respondent filed an appeal and that appeal was allowed by Ext.P7 order of the appellate committee. In the Revenue District Level Competition, both participated and the petitioner secured 4th place whereas the 3rd respondent secured first place. Petitioner filed appeal and that was rejected by Ext.P8. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the appeal resulting in Ext.P7 order, complaint of the 3rd respondent was that the assessment of performance by the judges were erroneous. It is stated that while that contention was accepted by the appellate committee, this very contention urged by the petitioner was rejected in Ext.P8. 2. In my view, the decision of the appellate committee will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each appeal. The WPC No.1449/11 :2 : fact that the contention of erroneous assessment by the judges was accepted in one case does not mean that, the same should be accepted in all cases. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp