IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 611 of 2008(W) ------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- VARSHA R.S., AGED 15 YEARS, D/O G.SATHEESHCHANDRAN, GIRLS H.S, KARUNAGAPPALLY, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER G.SATHEESHCHANDRAN, 'SREEKRISHNAPRASADAM', MADATHILKARAZHMA P.O., OACHIRA. BY ADV. SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, OFFICE OF THE DPI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE D.E.O, KOLLAM. 3. ADDITIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER, A.E.O OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN-690518. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 611 OF 2008 W ===================== Dated this the 8th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayers in this writ petition are for quashing Exts. P5 and P6. Ext.P5 is the marks awarded to the petitioner and Ext.P6 is the reasons for rejecting the appeals that were filed by the petitioner. 2. Petitioner had participated in the Sub District Level Competition at Karunagapally held on 26/11/2007 for Bharathanatyam, and Mohiniyattam. Aggrieved by the second prize that was awarded, petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal. One of the grievances highlighted in this writ petition pertains to the disposal of the appeal. According to the petitioner, appeals that filed were heard on 3/12/2007 though the manual required immediate hearing and disposal of the appeal within two days and that was not done. Even thereafter the order was not WPC 611/08 :2 : communicated and therefore the petitioner filed writ petition in this court as WP(C) No.35900/07 and that writ petition came up for orders on 4/12/2007 and that was disposed of recording the submission made by the learned Government pleader that appeals have already been disposed of. 3. It is stated that even thereafter the decision was not communicated and therefore the petitioner filed Ext.P4 application under the Right to Information Act and in response thereto she was issued Ext.P5, the tabulation sheet. Along with Ext.P5, Ext.P6, decisions in the appeals were also served on the petitioner. Petitioner would contend that the delay in considering the appeal and also communicating the order on the appeals filed was not innocent, but was deliberate. This according to the petitioner was to prevent the petitioner from participating in the District Level Competition so that her chance to participate in the State level competition could be spoiled. Therefore the essential grievance is regarding the alleged prevention of the petitioner from participating in the District level competition that commenced on 3/12/2007. WPC 611/08 :3 : 4. At this distance of time, I am not inclined to consider the plea of the petitioner regarding the alleged deliberate delay that was caused in considering the appeal, which according to her was to prevent her participation in the District level Youth Festival. In my view, if the petitioner was so keen to participate in the District Level Competition, petitioner should have, on realising the delay in disposing the appeal, approached this court in time so that necessary orders safeguarding her interest could have been obtained. This having not done, petitioner lost her chance to participate in the District Level Competition held on 3/12/2007. In view of this, it is not possible to accede to the request of the petitioner that without participating in the District Level Competition, with the second prize that she had obtained at the Sub District Level Youth Festival she should be permitted to participate in the State level competition. 5. Petitioner has a complaint that the judges who assessed the performance in the Sub District Level Competition were incompetent and that the very constitution of the panel of judges was against the provisions contained in the manual. True WPC 611/08 :4 : the petitioner made reference to Ext.P5, the panel of judges. It is not in controversy that this was not the panel of judges, who evaluated the performance of the petitioner. In view of this contention, the learned Government Pleader was directed to take instructions in the matter. On instructions, it is now submitted that items in which the petitioner was a participant could not held as originally scheduled and were rescheduled and as a result thereof, a situation arose where the designated judges were not available. It is pointed out that since such an extra ordinary situation arose, they had to reconstitute the panel with available judges. 6. It is in the above process that therefore panel of judges was finalised and deputed for assessing the performance of the petitioner and other candidates. If as stated by the learned Government Pleader, a situation of extra ordinary nature resulting in the non availability of the designated judges had arisen, I should agree with the learned Government Pleader that the only option that was available to the respondents was to reconstitute the panel with the best available persons, which has WPC 611/08 :5 : been done. If this was not done, the respondents would not have completed the youth festival itself and such a situation if prevented by their timely action, does not call for any interference. 7. Yet another complaint made by the petitioner is regarding the alteration of marks that are indicated in Ext.P5. Petitioner submits that in terms of the manual, if marks are altered, it should carry the signature of the person, who makes alterations in the mark sheet. Though in principle, what the petitioner contends is right and it is also true that initials alone are put wherever alterations have been made, yet the fact remains that even if the unaltered marks were taken, there will not be any variation in the final result that is declared. If that be so, the fact that the alterations have been made in the mark and that it does not carry the full signature of the person concerned, by itself does not call for any interference. 8. True the petitioner also contended that the suggestion of the judges as reflected in Ext.P9 was that the petitioner's performance was excellent. However the fact remains that WPC 611/08 :6 : similar, even if better, comments have been made in respect of the person, who was assessed to have performed better than the petitioner. Fact being so, comments of the judges that are extracted in Ext.P9 will not by itself lead to an inference that the assessment by the very same judges is to be faulted. In the result, on an over all appreciation of the case, I am satisfied that this case does not warrant interference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp