IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1719 of 2008(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ASWATHY.P.S., (MINOR), (TEAM LEADER OF SANGHANRUTHAM), CODE NO.168, ST.TERESAS CGHSS, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, REGINA SANTY, W/O. LATE SANTY, AGED 40 YEARS, PARAPILLIL HOUSE, VISHNUPURAM, CHERANELLUR, EKM, COCHIN-682 034. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE GENERAL CONVENOR, HIGHER SECONDARY REVENUE DISTRICT YOUTH FESTIVAL 2007-08, ERNAKULAM GOVT. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-16. 2. THE GENERAL CONVENOR, STATE LEVEL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL YOUTH FESTIVAL 2007-08 COMMITTEE, KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. JOINT DIRECTOR, ACADEMICS-CUM-JOINT CONVENOR, O/O. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI I.V.PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 1719 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: January 15, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner's team had participated in group dance in the District level Higher Secondary School Youth Festival. They were given 2nd prize with A grade. Unsatisfied with the assessment of performance, petitioner filed Ext.P1 appeal and that was rejected by Ext.P2. It is challenging Ext.P2and seeking a declaration that they are entitled to participate in the State level youth festival, that this writ petition has been filed. 2. A reading of Ext.P1 shows that the petitioner alleges partiality against the judges. It was also stated that the quality of the stage was poor. Petitioner further submits that the performance of the 1st prize winner was very bad. It is true, as contended by the petitioner, that reasons have not been given in Ext.P2 order of the appellate committee. But, then, the fact remains that the grounds that are raised in Ext.P1 appeal filed by the petitioner are, in my view, insufficient for interference with the assessment of performance by the judges. Though partiality has been alleged, petitioner has not given any particulars on the basis of which this allegation has been made. Apart from a vague allegation as above, petitioner has not substantiated the same. In so far as the allegation regarding the poor condition of the stage, since the stage was common for all the participants, I do not think that any special prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. In so far as the complaint of the petitioner regarding the unsatisfactory performance of the first prize winner is concerned, since the 1st prize winner has been assessed to be the best participant, I do not think that the petitioner's assertion against the assessment of performance is to be accepted as against the uniform assessment by the judges. 3. Irrespective of the contentions now raised by the petitioner, it is stated by the Government Pleader that the difference in marks between the petitioner and the 1st prize winner is 20. 4. In view of such wide disparity in marks between the petitioner and the 1st prize winner also, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to any relief. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE