IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 4350 of 2008(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ABHIMANYU.V.,AGED 19, S/O.M.N.VINAYA KUMAR,' ABHIMANYU', PUTHOORKKARA AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-3. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR. 2. VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT CALICUT UNIVERSITY PO, MALAPPURAM. 3. UNIVERSITY UNION CALICUT UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY. 4. PRINCIPAL, SREE KERALA VARMA COLLEGE THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLELADER MR. P.C. SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2008 ALONG WITH W.P.C. NO.4634 & 4742 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. W.P.(C)NOS.4350,4634 & 4742 OF 2008. DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners in these writ petitions have participated in fancy dress, group dance and opana competitions in the Calicut University Union D-Zone Arts Fest 2008 held at Thrissur. Unsatisfied with the grades they got and claiming that they should be permitted to participate in the inter zone competitions, these writ petitions have been filed. 2. The main allegation raised by the petitioners is regarding the constitution of the appellate committee. According to the petitioners, a student representative having allegiance to a political party acted as the programme Committee Convenor. Counsel for the petitioners would further argue that this is against Rule 17 of the Calicut University Arts Festival Rules. However, the petitioners WPC.4350/08 & CONN.CASES -2- have not raised any specific allegation in this regard in the writ petitions. Pleadings in support of the contentions are those available in paragraph 6 in W.P.(C)No.4350/2008, which only states that the appeal committee consists of two students representatives. Rule 18 of the aforesaid Rule gives the constitution of the appellate body and this includes the University Union Chairman/Secretary/a member of the University Union nominated by the General Convenor, apart from the official members. Therefore, the appellate body consists of two representatives of the students. Hence, inclusion of students in the appellate body is permissible . In W.P.C.No.4634, it is true that the petitioner alleged that one Anoop, a student, acted as the Programme Committee Convenor. However, the petitioner has not impleaded the said person and therefore, I am not in a position to take cognizance of the said allegation. WPC.4350/08 & CONN.CASES -3- Counsel for the University has made available the mark list from which it is evident that consistently higher marks have been given to the winners and the winning teams performed much better than the petitioners. In view of this, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions. The writ petitions are dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ks. K.R.UDAYABHANU,J. =================== CRL.A.NO. OF 200 JUDGMENT DATE: ......2006 =====================