IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 W.P(C).No. 1327 of 2008(G) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- KRISHNAJALI.S, STD IX DE PAUL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER MR.SOMARAKAN PILLAI AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNA PILLAI PALAPPILLIL, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SRI.A.PARVATHI MENON RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE APPEAL COMMITTEE, HEADED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. PROGRAMME CONVENOR,KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM /YOUTH FESTIVAL BEING CONDUCTED AT KOLLAM, KERALA. 5. SWETHA AJITH,STD IX,SACRED HEART HIGH SCHOOL,MOOLAMATTAM, ARAKKULAM SUB DISTRICT, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P. (C) No. 1327 OF 2008 - G = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner had participated in Bharathanatyam and Kerala Nadanam in the District Level Youth Festival and was given the second prize with A grade. She had fled an appeal and that was rejected by Ext. P2. It is challenging Ext. P2 and seeking an order enabling her to take part in the State Level competition that this writ petition has been filed. 2. A reading of Ext. P2 shows that the petitioner has got only 236 marks whereas the first prize winner got 245 marks. Thus there is a difference of 9 marks in between the petitioner and the first prize winner. The appeal committee has also gone through the tabulation sheet of the judges and was satisfied that the judges have properly assessed and found that the performance of the petitioner was not that good to be rated anything higher than second. Petitioner complains that she has not been granted an opportunity of hearing. Counsel for the petitioner was not in a WPC No. 1327/08 - 2 - position to refer to me any provision of the manual requiring such a personal hearing. In any case, even if, an opportunity is not given as asked by the petitioner, I do not find any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. That apart, It is also seen from Ext. P4 that the team manager was intimated about the time when the appeal was posted for hearing. 3. Petitioner refers to the tabulation sheet Ext. P5 and submit that marks have been scored off and that it does not contain the signature of the concerned judge. Ext.P5(c) shows the petitioner's own marks was initially 75 and the same has been corrected as 79. It is also contended that among the yardstick for assessment the last one at 'F' has been left blank. I have gone through the tabulation sheet. On an evaluation it is seen that even if the marks as originally awarded is excluded still the result would not have been different. Similar is the case with marks awarded for factor “F” also. Therefore, on an overall assessment I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for interference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-