IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2011 / 15TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 211 of 2011(B) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ DON PAUL REMIGIOUS, AGED 17, S/O.JOSHY PAUL, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, PATTITHANAM P.O., ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM AS REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN JOSHY PAUL, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, PATTITHANAM P.O., ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM, CHAIRMAN OF THE APPELLATE COMMITTEE, FOR THE WORK EXPERIENCE FAIR, 2010-2011, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 3. THE PRESIDENT, STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE, STATE WORK EXPERIENCE FAIR, 2010-2011, ALUVA 683 101. 4. CLEMINE ALPHONSA KURIAN, GOVERNMENT V.H.S., ETTUMANOOR, RESIDING AT PULINKALA, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.211 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 5th January, 2011 J U D G M E N T In Kottayam Revenue District Level Work Experience Fair - 2010-2011, petitioner participated in the item " Fruit Preservation". He got third prize with "A" grade and the second prize was awarded to the 4th respondent. Petitioner contends that under Ext.P4 Manual it was mandatory that the contestants should exhibit among other items jam also. It is his case that the 4th respondent did not exhibit jam. Yet another allegation raised is that the 4th respondent's mother was also an evaluator. 2. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the 4th respondent did exhibit jam. If that be so, that contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 3. Apart from the allegation that the 4th respondent's mother also was an evaluator, there is no allegation in the writ petition that the 4th respondent's mother evaluated the item displayed by her daughter, the 4th respondent. If that be so, even if it is a fact that the W.P (C) No. 211 of 2011 2 4th respondent's mother was also not evaluator nothing turns on that allegation. Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge W.P (C) No. 211 of 2011 3