IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2011 / 20TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 615 of 2011(B) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): -------------------- SHEETHAL.R., AGED 13 YEARS (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SILPA DAS, AMBADY, THEJUS AVENUE, SASTHA ROAD, SEKHARIPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.RADHAKRISHNAN SMT.RADHIKA P.GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE HEADMASTER, GOVT. MOYIL GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PALAKKAD. 3. THE ASST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 615 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 10th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner participated in the Palakkad Sub District Kalolsavam in the item Mono Act. She was awarded second prize with A Grade. Complaining that the sound system was defective and that the stage was not properly set, she filed an appeal. By Ext.P5 order, without assigning any reason, relying on the report of the Assistant Educational Officer, the appeal was rejected. It is challenging Ext.P5 and seeking a direction to permit the petitioner to participate in the Revenue District Kalolsavam, the writ petition is filed. 2. Learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions in the matter and submits that the first prize winner had secured 238 marks whereas the petitioner had secured only 220 marks. It is stated that all the other participants also performed on the same stage and with the same facilities. It is stated that no other participant had come up in a complaint similar to that of the petitioner. 3. Admittedly, the first prize winner who will be WPC No. 615/11 :2 : prejudiced if any order is passed in favour of the petitioner is not made a party to the writ petition and in that view, the writ petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Secondly, the marks secured by the petitioner show that her performance has been assessed much inferior to that of the first prize winner. In so far as the grievances regarding the sound system and the quality of the stage is concerned, since all participants have performed in the same environment and with the same facilities and without any complaint, even if factually there is any truth in what the petitioner says, I am not persuaded to think that any prejudice special to the petitioner could have been caused. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp