IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38811 of 2010(B) ------------------------ PETITIONER : --------------------- THEERTHA RAMESH, D/O.P.M.RAMESH BABU, AGED 15, RESIDING AT NARAYANEEYAM, VENGERI.P.O., CALICUT-10, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER P.M.RAMESH BABU, S/O.P.M.BHASKARAN, AGED 49, RESIDING AT NARAYANEEYAM, VENGERI.P.O., CALICUT-10. BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE, (CHAIRMAN, JURY OF APPEALS, THE KOZHIKODE REVENUE DISTRICT LEVEL IT - SCIENCE- MATHEMATICS-SOCIAL SCIENCE-WORK EXPERIENCE FAIR 2010-11). 3. ANSIN SREERAJ, STANDARD VIII, MENMUNDA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MENMUNDA.P.O., PIN-673 620. (AGE, RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS PARENTS' NAME ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) 4. HASSAN.M.K., STANDARD X, MUM VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MUKKOM.P.O., MUKKAM, PIN-673 602. (AGE, RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS PARENTS' NAME ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.38811 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 4th January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner participated in the Kozhikode Revenue District Science, Mathematics, Social Science, Work Experience and IT Fair, 2010. The product made by the petitioner was using paper card including chart card and straw board.. She was given 'C' grade with 171 marks. Aggrieved by the above, she filed an appeal which was rejected by Ext.P11 order. It is challenging the above, the writ petition is filed. 2. One of the main contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the provisions of the Manual the product made should have been evaluated by a Jury consisting of three judges and that in her case, the product was assessed only by two judges. 3. Learned Government Pleader was directed to obtain instructions in the matter. On instructions, he submits that the judges who evaluated the product are Rathnakaran Nair, Renjitha D and Satheesan R. From this W.P (C) No.38811 of 2010 2 it is obvious that the submission of the petitioner that the Jury constituted was defective is incorrect. Learned Government Pleader also submits that the difference between the first prize winner and the petitioner is 73 marks. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma W.P (C) No.38811 of 2010 3