IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 W.P(C).No. 1675 of 2008(Y) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SWATHY S. NATH, AGED 17, STANDARD XII, S.V.G.V.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KIDANGANNOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AND GUARDIAN KALAMANDALAM SURENDRANATH BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. GENERAL CONVENOR (CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE) PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT HIGHER SECONDARY KALOLSAVAM, PRINCIPAL, GOVT. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KALANJOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. CONVENOR, PROGRAMME COMMITTEE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT HIGHER SECONDARY KALOLSAVAM, UPSA, GOVT. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KALANJOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.01.2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 1675 OF 2008 Y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner had participated in Classical Music, Kathakali Sangeetham and Thiruvathira in the District Higher Secondary School Youth Festival. Aggrieved by the prizes that were awarded, petitioner filed appeals and those appeals were rejected by Exts. P3 to P5. It is contended before me that the first prize winner in the Classical Music has committed mistake in Raga. It is also stated that in the Kathakali Sangeetham, the first prize winner had wrongly chosen the song. It is also argued that in Thiruvathira the first prize winner had committed certain mistakes in the steps that she took during the course of performance. 2. These are too technical matters and only the judges can assess the performance of the rival candidates. Although the appeal memos, in relation to Exts. P3 to P5 decisions rendered by the appeal committee, have not been produced by the petitioner, the WPC No. 1675/08 -2- appellate committee in its orders stated that the assessment of performance by the judges is unassailable. In Exts. P3 and P5, it is also specifically noted that the judges have noticed the deficiencies in the performance rendered by the petitioner. In the light of all these, I do not think that the petitioner has made out a case for interference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-