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. 1654 of 2008(V) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ARCHANA S.PILLAI(MINOR), STANDARD XII, PADANILAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PADANILAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SREEDEVI S.PILLAI, THIRUVONAM, PALAMEL, PADANILAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE ORGANISING COMMITTEE FOR KERALA STATE HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOLS YOUTH FESTIVAL 2007-08 MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL CONVENER, THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ORGANISING COMMITTEE FOR ALAPPUZHA REVENUE DISTRICT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOLS YOUTH FESTIVAL 2007-08, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL CONVENER, THE PRINCIPAL, GBHSS, KAYAMKULAM. 3. THE APPELLATE COMMITTEE FOR ALAPPUZHA REVENUE DISTRICT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOLS YOUTH FESTIVAL 2007-08, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL CONVENER, THE PRINCIPAL, GBHSS, KAYAMKULAM. 4. A.ARCHANA(MINOR), STANDARD XI, S.N.M.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PURAKAD REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AND GUARDIAN MR. ARAVINDAKSHAN. 5. M.PARVATHY(MINOR), STANDARD XI, GOVERNMENT GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KALAVOOR REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AND GUARDIAN MR. MURALI. 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)NO.1654 OF 2008 ========================= Dated this the 15th day of January 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner had participated in Ottamthullal and Keralanadanam in the District Level Youth Festival and in both items, she was given second prize with A-grade. Appeals were filed by her. Petitioner contends that the decision of the appellate committee has not been communicated to her so far. 2. On instructions, learned Government Pleader submits that these appeals were considered and have been rejected by the appellate committee. Insofar as Ottamthullal is concerned, the contention of the petitioner is that the lights were not working and that the mike was also not functioning. Insofar as Keralanadanam is concerned, it is stated that the mike was not functioning and that the petitioner had to repeat her performance. These contentions were urged and have been considered by the appellate committee and appeals have been rejected. That apart if the mike was defective as stated by the petitioner, the only option that was available to the organizers was to rectify the defect and ask the participant to repeat the performance. I do not understand how this could have affected the performance of the participant. In view of this also, I am not inclined to interfere with the matter. The writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE css/