IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37785 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- RAKHI, AGED 17 YEARS, D/O.RANGANATHAN, EDAMTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, MOOLAVATTOM, KOTTAYAM- 1 REPRESENTED THROUGH HER FATHER RANGANATHAN, AGED 53 YEARS, EDAMTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, MOOLAVATTOM, KOTTAYAM-1. BY ADV. SRI.R.GIRISH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFCIE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 4. GENERAL CONVENER, KOTTAYAM EDUCATIONAL SUB DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM 2010-11, KOTTAYAM. 5. THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT APPELLATE COMMITTEE, KOTTAYAM EDUCATIONAL SUB DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM 2010-11 & DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 37785 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner participated in the Sub District Youth Festival for Kottayam Sub District in the item Kuchipudi and Bharathanatyam. She was given 2nd prize with 'A' grade in both items. Aggrieved by this, she filed appeals. As far as Kuchipudi is concerned, the appellate authority permitted the petitioner to participate in the District level Kalotsavam. In so far as the Bharathanatyam is concerned, the appeal was rejected. In this writ petition, petitioner impugns decision of the appellate committee, in so far as Bharathnatyam is concerned, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the stage was slippery and that the judges were did not assess performance properly and that were attending telephone calls through out the performance on stage. 2. The learned Government Pleader, who was obtained instructions in the matter submitted that the 1st prize winning team had secured 236 marks and the petitioner's team secured only 229 marks. It is also stated that no other team had raised any complaint as that of the petitioner. Further, it is also pointed W.P.(C).No. 37785 OF 2010 2 out that the 1st prize winning team is not made a party to the writ petition. 3. In the matter of assessment of performance in cultural events, unless there are strong reasons, this court will not interfere with the decision of the judges. In this case, apart from making allegations, petitioner has not produced anything to substantiate her contentions. The fact that all participants performed in the same stage and that there was no grievance from other teams, shows that the claim of the petitioner that the stage was defective, has been rightly rejected by the appellate authority. That apart, that the wide disparity in the marks and that the 1st prize winning team has not been impleaded in the writ petition also, are reasons for not entertaining the case of the petitioner. Writ petition fails and is dismissed ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE dmb