IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 883 of 2010(I) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. MUHAMMED SHAFI.C. AGED 17 YEARS, S/O. ABUBACKER, CHAKKUMKULAM HOUSE,P.O.CHALAVARA, REPRESENTED BY FATHER ABUBACKER, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. ALAVI, CHAKKUMKULAM HOUSE, P.O.CHALAVARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT AS GUARDIAN. 2. ABOOBAKKER SIDDIK.K. AGED 17 YEARS, S/O. SULAIKHA, KOTTUTHODI HOUSE, P.O.CHALAVARA REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SULAIKHA, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.ABUBACKER, KOTTUTHODI HOUSE, P.O.CHLAVARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT AS GUARDIAN. 3. ANSHIF MUHAMMED.P., AGED 17 YEARS, S/O.SABIRA, TERUVAZHIKULAM HOUSE, P.O.AMBALAVATTOM PANAMANNA, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SABIRA, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O. KUNJAMU, TERUVAZHIKULAM HOUSE, P.O.AMBALAVATTOM, PANAMANNA,PALAKKAD DISTRICT AS GUARDIAN. 4. MUHAMMED ABDUL BASITH.K.,AGED 17 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED ABDUL ASEES, KUMULLINKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.PANAMANNA, REPRESENTED BY FATHER MUHAMMED ABDUL ASEES, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. ABOOBACKER, KUMULLINKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.PANAMANNA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT AS GUARDIAN. 5. MUHAMMED DAWOOD.C., AGED 17 YEARS, S/O. FATHIMA, CHOLAYIL HOUSE, P.O.MUNDAKKOTTUKURISSI REPRESENTED BY MOTHER FATHIMA, AGED 38 YEARS,D/O. ABDU RAHMAN, CHOLAYIL HOUSE, P.O.MUNDAKKOTTUKURUSSI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT AS GUARDIAN 6. SIDHEEQUL AKBAR.P., AGED 17 YEARS, S/O. SAINABA, PARAKUTH HOUSE, P.O.KAYILIAD REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SAINABA, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O. MUHAMMED MUSLIAR, PARAKUTH HOUSE, P.O.KAYILIAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT AS GUARDIAN. 7. ABDUL HAKKIM. T., AGED 17 YEARS, S/O. JAMEELA, THACHERUTHODI HOUSE, P.O.PULIYANAMKUNNU REPRESENTED BY MOTHER JAMEELA, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O. HYDER, THACHERUTHODI HOUSE, P.O.PULIYANAMKUNNU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT AS GUARDIAN. WP(C).No. 883 of 2010(I) 8. MUHAMMED RIYAS.K., AGED 16 YEARS, S/O. ASYA KUNNAMKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.PULIYANAMKUNNU RPRESENTED BY MOTHER ASYA, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O. KUNHUSSAN, KUNNAMKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.PULIYANAMKUNNU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT AS GUARDIAN. 9. ROUFAL.T. , AGED 17 YEARS, S/O. RAMLA, THOTTINGAL HOUSE,P.O.CHALAVARA REPRESENTED BY MOTHER RAMLA, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O. HYDER, THOTTINGAL HOUSE, P.O.CHALAVARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT AS GUARDIAN. 10. ABDUL SAMAD.C. AGED 17 YEARS, S/O. NABEESA, CHOLAYIL HOUSE, P.O.MUNDAKKOTTUKURUSSI, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER NABEESA, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O.ABOOBACKER, CHOLAYIL HOUSE, P.O.MUNDAKKOTTUKURUSSI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT AS GUARDIAN. BY ADV. MR.D.ANIL KUMAR MR.P.JAYARAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, GENERAL CO-ORDINATOR KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2009-2010, KOZHIKKODE. 2. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, GENERAL CONVENOR, KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2009-2010 KOZHIKODE. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2009-2010 4. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, OTTAPPALAM CONVENOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2009-2010. 5. STATE REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 883 of 2010-I - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioners had participated in the event Dafmuttu in Palakkad District School Kalolsavam 2009-2010. They got A grade with second place. The challenge of the said result is mainly on the ground that the judges were not properly equipped and the three judges knew nothing about Dafmuttu. The petitioners have filed an appeal which was rejected by Ext.P1. Exts.P2 to P9 are relied upon to show that in earlier years they have participated well. 2. Learned Govt. Pleader on instructions submitted that there is a difference of 8 marks with the winning team and the petitioner's team. 3. It is clear from the order passed in appeal also that the appeal committee did not find any technical flaws as alleged by the petitioner. After considering the aspects pointed out by the learned Govt. Pleader, I am of the view that this Court will not be justified in interfering with the same and therefore the writ petition is dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/