IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1391 of 2008(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ARATHY SUDHAKARAN (MINOR), 10TH STANDARD, NIRMALA BHAVAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN AJITHA.S., "KAILASA MANDIRAM", SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SRI.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE GENERAL CONVENOR, 20TH REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOTSAVAM - 2007-2008, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE CHAIRMAN APPELLATE COMMITTEE (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM). 5. THE GENERAL CONVENOR, 48TH STATE SCHOOL YOUTH FESTIVAL 2007-08, KOLLAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO.1391 OF 2008 N ===================== Dated this the 11th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a participant in the Bharathanatiyam in the District Level Youth Festival. She did not get any price, but only A Grade. It is now submitted that soon after she started, there was power failure and that when power was restored, she was asked to continue the dance from the point she had to stop. It is stated that this affected her performance resulting in an erroneous result. 2. A reading of Ext.P1 appellate order shows that she had urged power failure as the technical reason. However, the finding of the Appellate Committee is that the complaint is incorrect. Learned Government Pleader also submits that the report of the judges does not reflect a power failure as stated by the petitioner. If that be so, the power failure that is contended by WPC 1391/08 :2 : the petitioner cannot be accepted without any further materials which are not available in this case. Apart from this, it is also pointed out by the respondents that the difference between the first prize winner and the petitioner is too wide. First prize winner had got 259 marks whereas the petitioner got only 238 marks. In view of such a vide disparity in the marks, I do not think the case calls for an order as sought for by the petitioner. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp