IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 891 of 2010(J) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- AFSAL, AGED 16, S/O.KHADEEJA (MINOR), REP. BY THE NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN MOTHER KHADEEJA, AGED 42, W/O.LATE ASHRAF, SALIM MANZIL, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE EDARIKOD HIGH SCHOOL, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL, EDARIKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 891 of 2010-J - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT The challenge is against the result of the District level competition held in the item Kolkali. The petitioner's allegation is that the programme itself was conducted in an unappropriate time and finally the team secured A grade without first place. The 4th respondent got the first place in the competition. Even though an appeal was filed, that was rejected by Ext.P4. Challenging the same, this writ petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds stated in the appeal. It is submitted that the schedule of the programme really was not properly done. The appellate committee rejected the contentions, finding that there was vast difference of marks between the winning team and that of the petitioner's team. They did not find any ground to interfere with the result. In a matter like this, this court will be loathe to interfere with, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No patent defects have been pointed out also. In these circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the matter and the writ petition is dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)