IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 235 of 2011(D) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- PARVATHY.B., STD.V, SNEMHS OACHIRA, REPRESNTED BY HER FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN E B BYJU RESIDING AT EDAKKATTU HOUSE, GOVINDAMUTTAM,PUTHUPPALY VILLGE, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.SABINA JAYAN SMT.MINI.V.A. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM, CHAIRMAN APPEAL COMMITTEE KARUNAGAPPALLY EDUCATION SUB DISTRICT SCHOOL FESTIVAL. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KARUNAGAPPALLY. KOLLAM. 3. UNNIMAYA, SVPM, NSS UPS, MANAPPALLY KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY THE NATURAL GURARDIAN UNNIKRISHNA PILLAI. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KOLLAM GENERAL CONVENOR, DISTRICT SCHOOL FESTIVAL KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.235 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is a student of 5th standard in SN English Medum Higher Secondary School participated in the Folkdance competitition at the Sub District Level. It is stated that first prize winner was awared 237 marks with A grade, the petitioner, the second prize winner was awarded 234 marks with A grade and yet another candidate was awarded 234 marks, but with B Grade. The petitioner appealed against the award of second prize to her. She contended that in the appeal filed, her performance has not been properly assessed. The appellate authority rejected the appeal by Ext.P3 order holding that there is no merit in the appeal. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order and seeks the intervention of this Court to participate in the District Level competitions commencing on 7.1.2011. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, on instructions, submitted that apart from the allegation that her performance has not been properly assessed by the Judges, the petitioner had not raised any other ground in the appeal memorandum. He also submitted that third prize holder had filed an appeal on the ground that while she was performing, there was power w.p.(c) No.235 of 2011 2 failure, as a result of which her performance was not properly assessed. He also submitted that the appellate authority found merit in the said contention and therefore permitted the 3rd prize holder to participate in the District Level competition. The petitioner has no case that there was any technical defect in the stage or power failure while she was on the stage. Her only complaint is that Judges did not award her proper marks. In such circumstances, I am pursuaded to hold that the decision taken by the appellate authority is not in any way illegal. I accordingly find no grounds to interfere with Ext.P3. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.