IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1710 of 2008(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RAHUL R.NATH (MINOR), S/O. K.P.RAGHUNATH, KOYIKKAMANGALATHU HOUSE, PERUMTHURUTHU PO, KOTTAYAM DIST, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER K.P.REGHUNATH. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL SRI.AJEY THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE GENERAL CONVENER, DISTRICT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL YOUTH FESTIVAL, KOTTAYAM, (THE PRINCIPAL, GOVT. BOYS HSS, PUTHUPPALLY, KOTTAYAM). 3. THE APPELLATE COMMITTEE OF THE DISTRICT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL YOUTH FESTIVAL KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, (THE 2ND RESPONDENT). 4. THE GENERAL CONVENER (JOINT DIRECTOR, ACADEMIC), STATE HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL YOUTH FESTIVAL AT KUTTIPPURAM IN MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. PRANAV.P.S., ST JOHNS BAPTIST H.S.S., NEDUMKUNNAM. BY GP. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J = = = = ======== = = = = W.P.(C).No. 1710 OF 2008 = = = = = ==== = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of January, 2008. = = = = = = = = == ==== = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T The petitioner participated in Mrudangam competition in the District level Youth Festival and got A grade. It is stated that he was a state winner in previous year's Youth Festival. Aggrieved by the assessments he preferred an appeal and that was dismissed by the appeal committee by Ext.P9. In this background this writ petition was filed challenging the assessment of the appeal committee order and for an order enabling him to participate in the State Level competition. According to appeal committee, it was only an account of the difference in performance that the petitioner got only 2nd prize. Petitioner contented that in the comments of the judges there were remarks suggesting that there was some external intervention. In view of the assertion made in court, I called for the judges papers. On going through the consolidated mark list of the judges, there was no such remark noted. Two judges have noted against the petitioner's name, that the petitioner had performed well. But then the 1st prize winner had performed W.P.(C).No. 1710 OF 2008 2 better. In the light of this, I am not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE bkn/-