IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 W.P(C).No. 1933 of 2008(E) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- MEENU. N. JOY, STD. XI, ST. JOSEPH G.H.S.S. MEPADY, WYNAD DISTRICT (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER MR. JOY AGED 45 YEARS, 'CHANDNI' NIVAS, MEPADY AMSOM DESOM, WYNAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. GENERAL CONVENOR, REVENUE DISTRICT HIGHER EDUCATION SCHOOL YOUTH FESTIVAL, GOVT. H.S.S. THARIYODU, WYANAD DISTRICT. 4. PROGRAMME CONVENOR, KERALA STATE HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL YOUTH FESTIVAL BEING CONDUCTED AT KUTTIPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 1933 OF 2008 E = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner had participated in Thiruvathirakali in the District Higher Secondary School Youth Festival and won the 2nd prize with A grade. It is stated that they lost by difference of 1 mark and according to the petitioner it was since the curtain fell before completely performing the item. Petitioner also submits that her team had demanded an opportunity for re-play and that was declined. It is also stated that an appeal was attempted to be filed, but was not accepted. 2. The learned Govt. Pleader, on instruction, submits that all the judges have unanimously assessed the first prize winner as better to the petitioner. It is also stated that the difference in marks between the petitioner and the first prize winner is 5 and not 1 as stated by the petitioner. Although the petitioner contends about the falling of the curtain and the refusal to accept the appeal, there is WPC No. 1933/08 -2- absolutely no material to support this version, apart from the assertions made by the petitioner. In view of the unanimous decision of the judges and the wide disparity in the marks I do not think it worthwhile that the writ petition should be entertained. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-