IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37585 of 2007(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ANURAG SANKAR,ST.GEORGE.H.S,ARAKUNNAM, REPRESSENTED BY HIS FATHER SOMASUNDARAM, THACHUKUZHIYIL EDAKKATTUVAYAL, THRIPUNITHARA. BY ADV. SRI.JOMY GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER ERNAKULAM 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE GENERAL CONVENER,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2007-08. 4. SREEKUMAR, KERALA KATHAKALI CENTRE, FORT COCHIN. 5. NANDAKUMAR R., MPMEM HS, KARNAKODAM, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 37585 OF 2007 Y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st January, 2008 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed praying for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to allow the petitioner to participate in the Ernakulam District Level School Kalolsavam, 2007-08. Petitioner was a participant in Thayambaka. 2. According to the petitioner out of the three judges who evaluated his performance, two have granted first place to him. However, the 3rd judge did not rate the petitioner as the other judges did. Petitioner submits that the 3rd judge had an axe to grind against the petitioner. That, according to him, was for the reason that the 4th respondent, the 3rd judge, had offered to train the petitioner, but it was politely refused by his father. For that reason, the petitioner submits that the 4th respondent felt heartburn and this feeling of the 4th respondent reflected in his assessment of the petitioner's performance. WPC No. 37585/07 -2- 3. Petitioner had filed Ext. P1 appeal against the assessment by the judges and that appeal has also been rejected by Ext. P2. It is in this background the writ petition has been filed. 4. It may be true that the two judges have ranked the petitioner in a manner different from the 3rd judge. But that by itself is not a reason to infer any malafides on the part of the 3rd judge. The only ground on which the petitioner impugns his assessment is that the 3rd judge had an ill-feeling against the petitioner. However, this ground of malafides was not urged by the petitioner in Ext. P1 appeal filed before the appellate committee. If the petitioner had any apprehension based on the malafides of the 4th respondent, the petitioner would certainly have urged that ground in the appeal. This having not been done, I am inclined to think that the ground of malafides now urged by the petitioner is clearly an afterthought. 5. On going through Ext. P2 decision by the appellate committee I notice that the committee has considered the complaint of the petitioner and also the assessment made by the judges. On such evaluation the appellate committee has found that the assessment of the petitioner's performance by the judges cannot be doubted for any reason and it is on that basis the appeal has been WPC No. 37585/07 -3- rejected. There is absolutely any material or any reason to take a view different from that of the appellate committee. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-