IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 360 of 2011(T) ------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------- ADARSH KURIAN, S/O.KURIAN,10TH STANDARD STUDENT, ST.THOMAS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KILIYANTHARA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.PETITIONER BEING A MINOR,AGED 16 YEARS,REPRESENTED BY FATHER K.J.KURIAN,ADVOCATE,S/O.JOSEPH,AGED 51 YEARS,R/AT KUTTANAL VEEDU,PUNNAD PO,IRITTY,KANNUR,PIN 670703. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. 2. GENERAL CONVENOR, IT FAIR,(STATE LEVEL), (THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, IT, @ SCHOOL PROJECT, TRIVANDRUM) - 695 001. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, (CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR - 670 001. 4. THE DISTRICT CO-ORDINATOR, (MEMBER, APPEAL COMMITTEE), IT @ SCHOOL PROJECT, DISTRICT RESOURCE CENTRE (DRC), MUNICIPAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANNUR - 670 001. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 360 of 2011 T ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner participated in the Kannur Revenue District IT Fair in the item 'Web Designing'. He did not get any prize. According to him, results were announced belatedly on account of which he could not file any appeal as provided in the Mannual. It is also alleged that prizes were awarded to some of the persons who did not comply with the instructions given by the Judges. It is also stated that the computer system given to the petitioner was very slow and that the same steps were used for every batch, as a result of which, some of the participants could get the subject well in advance. It is also alleged that some of the participants got assistance from their teachers. On these grounds, petitioner alleges that the prizes awarded are illegal and that he is entitled to participate in the State Level competition. 2. Learned Government Pleader has obtained W.P.(C) No.360/2011 : 2 : instructions in the matter. According to the learned Government Pleader, the first prize winner secured 252 marks, the second prize winner secured 240 and the third prize winner secured 234 marks. It is stated that the petitioner secured only 204 marks The learned Government Pleader further submits that the results were announced at the venue itself and, therefore, if the petitioner wanted, he could have filed an appeal in time, which he did not do. Learned Government Pleader also denies the allegation that of the petitioner that the competition was held in violation of the provisions of the Mannual. Further, according to the learned Government Pleader, the similar computer system was provided to all the participants and, therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that the system provided to him was slow is incorrect. 3. First of all, the prize winners have not been impleaded in the writ petition and, therefore, no order can be passed in this writ petition to their prejudice. From the W.P.(C) No.360/2011 : 3 : submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, it is evident that the allegations of the petitioner regarding the violation of the provisions of the Mannual, are incorrect. That apart, if the same type of computer system was provided to all participants, the petitioner cannot complain of any prejudice having been caused to him. In addition to this, there is wide disparity in the marks secured by the petitioner as compared to the marks secured by the prize winners. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the matter. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks