IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1104 of 2008(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.M.KRISHNA (MINOR), AGED 15 YEARS, S/O.MANOHARAN, KOZHISSERY HOUSE, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, SOBHANA MANOHARAN, AGED 47, KOZHISSERY HOUSE, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR. 2. GENERAL CONVENOR, KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2007-2008 3. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 1104 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: January 9, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner, a participant in the District level youth festival, was given 2nd prize with A Grade. It is stated that while at the stage she suffered an electric shock and, according to the petitioner, that had affected her performance. It is also complained that the 1st prize winner also had suffered electric shock, but she was given a second chance to perform and that despite complaints, fresh chance was denied to the petitioner. On this basis the petitioner impugns the prize awarded to her. It is also stated that the petitioner had filed an appeal before the appellate committee, but its decision has not been communicated. 2. The only material that is produced in this writ petition is Ext.P1, a newspaper report, from which the second opportunity that was given to the 1st prize winner is obvious. However, it is clear from the newspaper report itself that the 1st prize winner had complained and it was therefore that she was given a fresh chance. WP(C) 1104/2008 Page numbers There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner asked for a second chance. If that be so, it has to be taken that the petitioner was content with her performance. In such a situation, petitioner cannot now complain of not having given a second opportunity. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-