IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2009 / 2ND POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37581 of 2009(P) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ASWATHY JUGESH.B.(MINOR) STANDARD XII, SCARED HEART HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM, REP.BY FATHER JUGESH M.XAVIER, MADAVANA HOUSE, 16/745, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI 682 005. BY ADV. SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE ORGANISING COMMITTEE FOR ERNAKULAM EDUCATIONAL SUB-DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2009-10, REP.BY ITS GENERAL CONVENER, SACRED HEART HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE APPELLATE COMMITTEE, ERNAKULAM EDUCATIONAL SUB-DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2009-10, REP.BY ITS CONVENER, THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE ORGANISING COMMITTEE FOR ERNAKULAM REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL, KALOLSAVAM 2009-10, REP.BY ITS GENERAL CONVENER, DEPUTY EDUCATION OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 4. KAVYA, STANDARD XI, ST.THERESAS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.37581 of 2009-P = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner's case is that the Judging Committee in relation to Kuchippudy for the Ernakulam Educational Sub District Kerala School Kalolsavam, had a biased approach leading to the petitioner defeating in the competition and the fourth respondent came out successful. The fourth respondent is a student of the son of Shyamala Teacher who had arranged Judges for competition, it is contended. The said teacher is not a party to this writ petition. Allegations of bias cannot be assumed. Co-relation attempted to be made between the said teacher and the fourth respondent is not based on any material. Obviously, it may not also be. At any rate, the facts do not generate circumstances warranting interference in exercise of Article 226 of the WPC37581//09 -: 2 :- Constitution. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/2412