IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38683 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- BLESSY VINCENT.V ,AGED 17 YEARS, ST.JOSEPH H.S.S, PAVARATTY THRISSUR, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER V.K.VINCENT, S/O.V.P.KOCHAPPAN, AGED 49 YEARS, VADUKOOTTU HOUSE, PAVARATTY PO,TRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM PIN 695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS JAGATHY,TRIVANDRUM,PIN 695 014. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION TRISSUR, PIN 680020. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION ERNAKULAM PIN 689 101. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 38683 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T In the District Level Paper Craft Competition for Trichur Revenue District, petitioner participated and she was awarded 4th prize with B Grade. Against the prize given, she filed Ext.P7 appeal. That was rejected by Ext.P1 order. It is challenging Ext.P1 order and seeking a direction that she be permitted to participate in the State Level Competition, the writ petition is filed. 2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Ext.P1 order of the Appellate Committee does not reflect consideration of the grounds raised in the appeal. It is also stated that, the judges were not experts to assess the products made by the competitors. Yet another contention raised is that Ext.P1 does not contain any reasons for rejecting the appeal. It is also contended that the manual provided that the appeal should be decided by the Appellate Committee consisting of atleast two members, and that, Ext.P1 shows that the appeal was decided by the Chairperson herself. WPC No. 38683/10 :2 : 3. Learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions in the matter. According to the learned Government Pleader, the evaluation was strictly in terms of the yardsticks laid down in the manual. It is also contended that the appeal was considered by the Appellate Committee and that Ext.P1 is only an order passed by the Chairperson communicating the decision of the Appellate Committee. According to the learned Government Pleader, although the order cannot be said to be a detailed one, the appeal was decided only on due application of mind and also considering the grounds raised. 4. First of all, this writ petition is defective for the reason that the existing first prize winner, who alone is now eligible to participate in the State Level Competition is not made a party. That apart, having regard to the materials produced by the learned Government Pleader, I am inclined to agree with him that the judges have evaluated the product made by the petitioner applying the yardsticks laid down in the manual. Further, as is evident from Ext.P1, it is only an order communicating the decision of the Appellate Committee and cannot be said to be an order passed by the Chairperson herself dealing with the appeal WPC No. 38683/10 :3 : contrary to the provisions of the Manual. Apart from all this, this Court also cannot loose site of the fact that the petitioner has secured only 4th prize with B Grade, and therefore, if any order is passed in her favour, that will be affecting the rights of all others who have secured higher marks and grades than the petitioner. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp