IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1708 of 2008(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- RUBY C.R., AGED 17 YEARS, GROUP LEADER, 'MARGAMKALI TEAM', MUNICIPAL H.S.S. KANDANGALY (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY FATHER AND GUARDIAN C.R.RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING AT 'SREERAVAM', NEAR BUS STAND, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE, KANNUR DISTRICT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL KALOTSAVAM, ANJARANKANDY H.S.S., MAMBA POST, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE GENERAL CONVENOR, KANNUR DISTRICT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL KALOTSAVAM 2007-2008, ANJARANKADY H.S.S. MAMBA POST, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE GENERAL CONVENOR, STATE HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL KALOTSAVAM 2007-2008, G.H.S.S, KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. KALAMANDALAM DHANYA, DHANYAPURI, MUYIPOTH POST, MEPPAYYUR (VIA), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ..2/- ...2.... WPC.NO.1708/2008 C 5. KALAMANDALAM PRASANNA, PRASAM, CHATHAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 6. SUVARNA CHANDROTH, ARUNIMA, KOLLAM P.O KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 7. VARSHA, GROUP LEADER, 'MARGAMKALI' MAMBRAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MAMBRAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 8. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.1708 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of January 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner who had participated in Margom Kali in the District Level Youth Festival secured A-grade and the 7th respondent was given first prize with A-grade. It is stated that unsatisfied with the assessment of performance, petitioner had filed an appeal and that was rejected by Ext.P8. 2. The contention that is raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the eligibility of the judges who have assessed the performance. It is stated that respondents 4 to 6 were not trained in Margom Kali. It is also contended that Exts.P6 and P7 are the Bio-Datas of respondents 4 and 5. Petitioner would contend that these two persons were qualified from Kalamandalam and that they were not trained in Margom Kali at all. According to him, "among the other qualifications for specialized item" occurring in Exts.P6 and P7, Margom Kali was inserted after the appeal was filed by the petitioner and in order to defraud the students. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader, who on instructions, submits that he had personally ascertained from the judges, whether they were trained in Margom Kali. Government W.P.(C)1708/2008 2 Pleader submits that the 5th respondent and 6th respondent are qualified from Kalamandalam and they got training in Margom Kali also. It is also submitted that the judges were unanimous in the assessment of performance and that the difference of marks between the petitioner and the 7th respondent was 19. 3. From the facts as stated above, I have no reason to think that the judges were unqualified as contended by the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader has already ascertained that the judges had the qualification. That apart in Exts.P6 and P7, the fact that respondents 4 and 5 are trained in Margom Kali is also mentioned. Though the petitioner contends that Margom Kali has been inserted in Exts.P6 and P7 subsequent to the filing of the appeal, I am not persuaded to accept that contention. Learned Government Pleader also submits that the 5th respondent has confirmed that she has got training in Margom Kali. In view of this and also on account of absence of any materials suggesting the contrary, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the writ petitioner. I find no basis in the allegations raised in the writ petition. Writ Petition fails. Dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE css