IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20 of 2011(B) -------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- JISHNU.K, PLUS ONE STUDENT, MES HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND GUARDIAN, KRISHNADASAN.T., 'VRINDAVANAM', KANJIRAM, PERUMBADARI PO, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD-678001. 2. GENERAL CONVENOR, KERALA SCHOOL SCIENCE MATHEMATICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE FAIR-2010-11, G.B.H.S.S., ALUVA-683101. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 4. THE CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE, REVENUE DISTRICT SCIENCE MATHEMATICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE FAIR-2010-11, PALAKKAD-678001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.20 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 4th January, 2011 J U D G M E N T In the Palakkad Revenue District Level Kerala School Science Mathematics and Social Science Fair 2010- 2011, petitioner participated in the item Mathematics (Games). He was awarded third place. An appeal was filed and that was rejected by Ext.P3. It is challenging the above, the writ petition is filed. 2. According to the petitioner, there was no proper evaluation and that if his performance was properly evaluated, he should have been given first place. However, a reading of the writ petition does not show that in what manner the petitioner's performance ought to have been assessed as first or in what manner the assessment of the prize awarded to the first and second prize winners is erroneous. That apart, the appeal memorandum which led to Ext.P3 is also not on record to evaluate the grounds that were urged by the petitioner. In addition to this, it is also seen that the first and second prize winners are not impleaded in this writ petition. W.P (C) No.20 of 2011 2 3. Further, learned Government Pleader submits that while the first and second prize winners secured 233 and 222 marks respectively , there were three prize winners including the petitioner, who got only 200 marks. This also shows the wide disparity in the marks awarded to the petitioner. On the facts as above, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma W.P (C) No.20 of 2011 3