IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 36954 of 2008(Y) ------------------------------------ PETITIONERS : ------------------ 1. ANNAMMA MATHEW, H S A, M.M.A.H. SCHOOL, MARAMON, PATHANAMTHITTA 2. GOPIKRISHNAN, SCHOOL DRAM LEADERFOR PULLAD SUB DISTRICT YOUTH FESTIVAL, M.M.A.H. SCHOOL, MARAMON, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.BIJI MATHEW SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. APPEAL COMMITTEE FOR PULLAD SUB DISTRICT YOUTH FESTIVAL, THIRUVALLA PATHANAMTHITTA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.36954 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT The 1st petitioner is the Team Manager for Drama of the M.M.A. High School, Maramon and the 2nd petitioner is the school Drama Leader. The team had participated in the Sub District Level Youth Festival for the High School Division. Another team was selected for the District Level. This was challenged in Ext.P1 appeal. It is stated in Ext.P1 that it seems that the team which was awarded rank No.1 was preferred for the reason that the drama staged by them has better social contemporaneous relevance to that of the 2nd petitioner's team and not for any other criteria. The staging of the play, the level of performance of the participants and other factors should also be taken into account. The fact that there was interruption in the mike and in the audio system when the petitioners team was staging their performance has also not been taken into account by the judges, it is alleged. 2. In Ext.P2, the appellate committee rejected the appeal finding that the manner of staging and the level of W.P.(C) 36954 of 2008 2 performance, has been taken note of by the judges and their opinion in that regard is also note worthy. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the other contentions in Ext.P1 have not been taken into account. One should remind oneself the fact that what is involved is only the assessment of merit of rival teams and assessment made by judges, who have expertise in the field, cannot be lightly interfered with by this court. The conduct of the festival is not regulated by any statutory provision. Nor can it be said that there is any willful conduct on the part of the respondents, causing detriment to the petitioners. 4. I do not find any grounds to interfere, in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, dismissed. V.GIRI, JUDGE pac