IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1130 of 2008(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SREENATH.N., (MINOR, AGED 14 YEARS), 9TH STANDARD STUDENT, ST.JOSEPH BOYS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THALASSERY, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER, SUKHIDA, THANKALAYAM, PALAYAD, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE GENERAL CONVENER, 20TH REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOTSAVAM 2007-2008, KANNU, (PRINCIPAL, AKA SG VHSS, PAYYANNUR). 4. THE CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE, (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR). 5. THE GENERAL CONVENER, 48TH STATE SCHOOLS YOUTH FESTIVAL 2007-2008, KOLLAM. 6. NAYAN GHOSH, 10TH STANDARD STUDENT, AKA SG VHSS, PAYYANNUR. R1 & 2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 1130 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: January 9, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner had participated in Mono-act in the district level youth festival and was awarded 2nd prize with A Grade. It is stated that aggrieved by this prize, he had filed an appeal and that there has not been any response. It is stated that the 6th respondent was awarded 1st prize and that being a student of the school where competitions were held, partiality was shown to him and that resulted in his getting higher rank. 2. The instructions to the Government Pleader is to the effect that the judges have uniformly assessed the performance of the 6th respondent as superior to that of the petitioner and that the difference in marks between the petitioner and the 6th respondent is 9. It is also stated that in the appeal filed by the petitioner, the undue advantage that was allegedly given to the 6th respondent had not been raised by the petitioner and therefore this contention now raised for the first time cannot be taken cognizance of. WP(C) 1130/2008 Page numbers 3. It is pointed out by the petitioner that at the time when he was performing on the stage, power supply was made available from a generator and due to the sound of the generator, his performance was not upto the mark. This cannot be a reason for interfering with the decision of the appellate committee. At any rate, the generator could not have affected the performance of the petitioner alone, but, if at all had it any harmful effect, it would have affected others also and therefore for this reason I cannot interfere with the assessment of the performance by the judges. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-