IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 798 of 2008(T) ------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- VINU KRISHNA.P, S/O.ANAYADI PRASAD, AGED 14 YEARS (MINOR), STD.IX, GOVT.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KOTTARAKKARA, R/AT SRUTHI, TEMPLE NAGAR 35 KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DIST.REP. BY NEXT FRIEND CHANDRAKUMARI, TEACHER & TEAM MANAGER FOR THE SCHOOL,FOR THE KOLLAM REVENUE DIST.SCHOOL YOUTH FESTIVAL, GOVT.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KOTTARAKKARA, (REPRESENTING MINOR IN THE CAPACITY AS HER NEXT FRIEND) BY ADV. SRI.P.V.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, OFFICE OF THE D.P.I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DD, KOLLAM CHAIRMAN OF THE APPEAL COMMITTEE FOR THE REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL YOUTH FESTIVAL COMPETITIONS, KOLLAM REVENUE DISTRICT. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 798 OF 2008 T ===================== Dated this the 10th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who was a participant in the Revenue District Level Youth Festival in Mridangam was given 2nd prize and A Grade. He lost in the appeal. It has been taken note of by the appellate committee that the petitioner has not taken objection regarding the judges at the time when he participated. It is also stated that the objection raised were incorrect. 2. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, submission of the learned counsel confined to the so called incompetence of the judges, who assessed the performance in Mridangam. It is stated in para 4 of the writ petition that Manjoor Unnikrishnan, one of the judge was a Ghadam player and Viju S.Anand, another judge was a Violinist. According to the petitioner these persons were not experts in Mridangam and WPC 798/08 :2 : therefore judgment could only be erroneous. 3. However, on instructions, learned Government pleader points out that both these persons are experts in Mridangam and therefore they are competent to assess the performance of the participants. It is also stated that there was a third judge by name Sri. Vinod Chandran, an equally competent person to judge the performance. 4. In view of the above submission made by the learned Government pleader, I cannot accept the contention of the petitioner. Petitioner also has not made available any material to conclude otherwise. In the appeal, this was only one of the complaints and that has been rejected by the Appellate Committee. Apart from all these, it is also a fact that between the petitioner and the first prize winner, the difference in marks was 13. In view of such substantial variation in the marks also, I do not find any reason to conclude that the assessment made by the judges were erroneous. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp