IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 546 of 2010(P) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- ARATHY SURESH, AGED 17 YEARS (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER A.P. SURESH, S/O.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, MAYOORAM, PAZHAVEEDU, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION), ALAPPUZHA. 2. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM REGION, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 4. MUKUND RAJ, TEAM LEADER, T.D.H.S.S., THURAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 546 of 2010-P - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is the team leader representing Thiruvampady Higher Secondary School, Pazhaveedu, Alappuzha which participated in the item Group Song in the Alappuzha District Youth Festival. The competition was conducted on 3.1.2010. The 4th respondent was declared as first in the above competition and the petitioner's team was awarded with the second prize. It is the case of the petitioner that there were some problems in the sound system provided by the organizers. Challenging the result of the competition, an appeal was filed as per Ext.P1, which stands rejected as per Ext.P2. Aggrieved by the disposal of the appeal, this writ petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal committee has not properly considered the merits of the matter. It is also submitted that they have not inspected the technical flaws pointed out by the petitioner. 3. A reading of Ext.P2 shows that there is a difference of 13 marks with the group adjudged as first and the appeal committee relied upon the wpc 546 /2010 2 observations by the judges that the performance was not that much good. 4. I do not find any reason to interfere with the result of the competition and even though learned counsel for the petitioner requested for a direction to allow the petitioner's team to participate in the State level competition, I am not inclined to pass an order as the grounds alleged are not sufficient for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/