IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 W.P(C).No. 1984 of 2008(J) -------------------------------- PETITIONERS: 1. EMY MARY JOSE, AGED 16 YEARS (MINOR), REP. BY HER GUARDIAN, JOSE K.V. KOLLAMBRATH HOUSE, VARADIUM P.O. , THRISSU. 2. RESHMA. M. AGED 16 YEARS, (MINOR), REP. BY GUARDIAN RADHA RAMACHANDRAN, MANGAT HOUSE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DT. 3. SUVARNA. P, aged 16 years (MINOR), REP. BY HER GUARDIAN, JANAKY. P, KIZHUPPULLY HOUSE, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR. 4. SHARI.P, AGED 17 YEARS, (MINOR, REP. BY HER GUARDIAN, MEENA BABU, VAZHUTHANASSERY HOUSE, KALLEKULANGARA P.O., PALAKKA. 5. RIA RUSHIN JOSEPH, AGED 17 YEARS (MINOR), REP. BY HER GUARDIAN, LISSY JOSEPH, AKKARA HOUSE, PURANATTUKARA, TRISSUR DT. 6. DIVYASREE DIVAKARAN, AGED 17 YEARS (MINOR), REP. BY HER GUARDIAN, SREEJA DIVAKARAN, CHETTIPARAN HOUSE, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN RESPONDENTS: 1. THE GENERAL CONVENOR, STATE LEVEL KERALA STATE HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM TO BE HELD AT GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KUTTIPURAM. 2. THE GENERAL CONVENOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT LEVEL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM TO BE HELD AT GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KUTTIPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 1984 OF 2008 J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioners had participated in the District Higher Secondary School Youth Festival. For drama they were given the 2nd prize with A grade. Unsatisfied with the prize, Ext. P3 appeal was filed and that was rejected by Ext. P4. 2. Although the petitioners reiterate the contentions in Ext. P3 that the mike was howling and light was inadequate, a reading of Ext. P4 proceedings of the appeal committee shows that the performance of the petitioners was relatively inferior. It is stated in Ext. P4 that the contents of the story was not clear and the conversation was not appreciable. It is also stated that the conversation was mechanical and according to the appeal committee these were the defects which led to the inferior ranking of the petitioner and not the reasons stated by them in Ext. P3. In view of the cogent reasons stated in Ext. P4 by the appeal WPC No. 1984/08 -2- committee, I do not find any reason to upset the conclusions in Ext. P4. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-