IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1676 of 2008(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- ATHIRA MANOHAR, AGED 17, STANDARD XII, S.V.G.V. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KIDANGANNOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN VANAJA MANOHAR. BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. GENERAL CONVENOR (CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE), PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT HIGHER SECONDARY KALOLSAVAM PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KALANJOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. CONVENOR, PROGRAMME COMMITTEE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT HIGHER SECONDARY KALOLSAVAM UPSA, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL KALANJOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 1676 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of January 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that though she had participated in several items including Bharathanatyam except in Bharathanatyam, in all other items she has been given first prize with A-grade. It is stated that in order to exclude the petitioner from State level competition in Bharathanatyam, she has been deliberately ranked low and given second prize. Petitioner also submits that in the last year, she was first in the State. 2. On instructions, learned Government Pleader submits that all the judges have unanimously assessed that the first prize winner to have performed better than the petitioner. It is also stated that in Bharathanatyam, the difference in marks between the petitioner and the first prize winner is `8’. 3. Although the petitioner contends that it was only to deny her first prize in Bharathanatyam that she has been wrongly assessed, I am not persuaded to accept the contention of the learned counsel. This is for the reason that apart from the petitioner’s assumption in that behalf, there is absolutely no material to support the plea and to upset the unanimous decision of the judges. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE css