IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36821 of 2010(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- REMYA GEORGE (MINOR), STANDARD XII, ST SEBASTIAN'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, JESSY GEORGE, AGED 48, WO. GEORGE, PAYYAPPILLIL HOUSE, KONAM, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6. BY ADV. SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE FOR MATTANCHERRY SUB-DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2010-2011, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL CONVENOR, ST. MARY'S ANGLO INDIAN GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI- 682 001. 2. THE APPELLATE COMMITTEE MATTANCHERRY SUB-DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2010-2011, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, THE ASISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MATTANCHERRY- 02. 3. THE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE FOR ERNAKULAM REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2010-2011, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL CONVENER, DEPUTY EDUCATION OFFICER, ERNAKULAM-16. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------- WP (C) No. 36821 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------------- The petitioner is a XIIth Standard student in St. Sebastian's Higher Secondary School, Palluruthy. In this writ petition her grievance is against the prizes that were given for Bharathanatyam and Folk Dance competitions in the Mattancherry Sub District School Kalolsavam 2010-2011. According to the petitioner, while she was performing Bharathanatyam, the music accompanying the dance was not properly audible for the reason that there was no feed back speaker on the stage and that as a result of it, the petitioner could not synchronise her steps, which affected her performance. As far as Folk Dance competition is concerned, it is stated that the competitions for Bharathanatyam and Folk Dance were scheduled in two different schools with a very short WP (C) No. 36821 of 2010 2 time gap. It is stated that as a result of it, the petitioner could not perform well in that competition also. Here also the petitioner submits that there was no feed back speaker on the stage which affected her performance. She filed appeals against decisions of the judges which were rejected by Exts.P1 and P2 orders. As a result, she is now denied opportunity to perform in the Revenue District School Kalolsavam, scheduled to commenced on 11.12.2010. It is in these circumstances this writ petition has been filed. 2. Learned Government Pleader who has obtained instructions in the matter submitted that, so far as Bharathanatyam is concerned the first prize winner secured 242 marks where as the petitioner secured only 227 marks. In so far as Folk Dance is concerned, it is stated that, first price winner secured 232 marks and the 2nd price winner secured 226 marks and in so far as the petitioner is concerned she has secured only 224 marks. It is also WP (C) No. 36821 of 2010 3 submitted that all the participants performed in the same stage and other contestants did not raise any grievance similar to that of the petitioner. Therefore, according to him, there is absolutely no merit in the case of the petitioner. 3. In this case, admittedly, the expert judges have assessed the performance of the petitioner and she has not secured first prize in both the items. In so far as the complaints raised by the petitioner are concerned, as can be seen from Exts. P1 and P2, the same stage was made available to all the contestants and no other contestants has raised similar complaints. On the other hand if what the petitioner contends is factually true, such complaints would have come from other contestants also. Further since the stage and sound system available was common for all, no prejudice special to the petitioner could have been caused. WP (C) No. 36821 of 2010 4 4. In such circumstances, this Court will not be justified in upsetting the assessment done by the judges. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. rkc