IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38119 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ S. GREESHMA RAJENDRAN, D/O. A. RAJENDRAN, AGED 18 YEARS, RESIDING AT GREESHMA PALAPPOOR, VELLAYAYANI.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE, KERALA STATE SCHOOL YUVAJANOTSAVAM, 2008-2009 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REVENUE DISTRICT, GOVT.H.S.S. KILIMANNOOR, (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) 3. THE GENERALA CONVENER, THE KERALA STATE SCHOOL YUVAJANOTSAVAM 2008-2009 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVENUE DISTRICT, H.S.S. KILIMANOOR. 4. THE PROGRAMME COMMITTEE CONVENER (KUCHUPUDI), THE KERALA STATE SCHOOL YUVAJANOTSAVAM 2008-2009 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVENUE DISTRICT, GOVT. H.S.S. KILIMANOOR. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 38119 OF 2008 (K) ==================== Dated this the 26th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by the 2nd prize and A grade that she was awarded in the Kerala School Kalotsavam, Thiruvananthapuram, Revenue District and also the decision of the 2nd respondent rejecting her appeal. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that in the previous year, she was the 1st prize winner and therefore, the assessment of her performance in this year is erroneous. The fact that the petitioner had secured A grade and 1st prize in the previous year by itself is no decisive factor to hold that the assessment of her performance in this years youth festival is erroneous. 2. Further, the Learned Government Pleader on instructions points out that the 1st prize winner had secured 250 marks where as the marks secured by the petitioner is only 235. According to the learned Government Pleader, the decision by the judges and also by the appellate committee was unanimous. 3. On the materials available, I am unable to conclude that the decisions impugned are vitiated for any reason. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp