IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38284 of 2008(G) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER : ---------------- AMALDEV, STANDARD X, VISWABHARATHI MODEL HIGH SCHOOL, KRISHNAPURAM, RESIDING AT SANTHOSH NIVAS, SOUTH MANKUZHY, PULLIKANAKKU P.O., KAYAMKULAM, REPRESENTED BY JAYADEV.S, -DO- -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SMT.SURYA SASI RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, GENERAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CONVENOR, PROGRAMME COMMITTEE KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOTSAVAM 2008-09. WP(C).No. 38284 of 2008(G) 4. GENERAL CONVENOR, PROGRAMME COMMITTEE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOTSAVAM 2008-09. 5. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE, ALAPPUZHA REVENUE DISTRICT KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOTSAVAM 2008-09. 6. RISHIKESAN NAMBOOTHIRI, STANDARD X, SREE BHUVANESWARI HIGH SCHOOL, MANNAR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 38284 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner had participated in the Revenue District Competition of Kerala School Kalotsavam, Mavelikara. His item was Kathakalisangeetham. He was granted second price with A grade. Appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected vide Exhibit P8. Counsel points out that the mike system provided was defective and according to him that was the reason for the petitioner's inferior performance. In the appeal, the appeal committee rejected the above allegation raised by the petitioner. That apart, the learned Government pleader points out that there was no report to that effect from the stage manager. It is also stated that there is a difference of 15 marks between the first prize winner and the petitioner. On the materials available, petitioner has not made out any case for interference. The writ petition fails and hence, it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm