IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38798 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. MIGHA SHAJAN, AGED 17 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER O.J.SHAJAN, AGED 49 YEARS, OLAKKANGIL HOUSE, P.O.PAVARTTY, THRISSUR. 2. AMEEMA ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 17 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AMINA ALI, AGED 49 YEARS, KOLETHUKKATTU HOUSE, KALATHODU, P.O.OLLUKKARA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH SRI.T.P.SAJU RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE, THRISSUR DISTRICT SCHOOLS SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS & SOCIAL SCIENCE FAIR 2010-11, DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), THRISSUR-680 001. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, KERALA STATE SCHOOLS SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS & SCOCIAL SCIENCE FIAR 2010-11, (ORGANIZED BY DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION) ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-682 101. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 38798 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners participated in the Trichur District Schools Science, Mathematics and Social Science Fair 2010-11. The product exhibited by the petitioners was an amphy cycle, which can be used both in water and land. According to the petitioners, they were awarded third prize with C Grade. Aggrieved by the prize given, they filed Ext.P14 appeal and that was rejected by Ext.P15. It is challenging Ext.P15 and seeking a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to participate in the State Level Competition, the writ petition is filed. 2. The first contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that the first and second prize winners downloaded the details of the product exhibited by them from the internet and therefore their products lacked originality. It is stated that therefore their products ought not have been given any prize at all. 3. First of all, in my view, in the absence of having impleaded the two persons against whom allegations are levelled WPC No. 38798/10 :2 : as parties in this writ petition, contention that the product exhibited by them lacked originality, cannot be appreciated. 4. The second contention raised by the petitioners is that the manual prescribes the quorum for considering the appeal filed by the petitioners. It is stated that Ext.P15 shows that the appeal was considered only by the Chairman. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, Ext.P15 is only an order issued by the Chairman communicating the decision of the Appellate Committee and therefore Ext.P15 does not mean that the appeal was considered by the Chairman himself. It is also pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the average mark secured by the first prize winner was 81, second prize winner 73, third prize winner 62.3 and the petitioners 53. In view of the vide disparity in the marks secured also, I am not persuaded to interfere with the matter. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp