IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38060 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHONA AJITH K.P. REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN, K.P.AJITH KUMAR, S/O. K.P.MANUKUTTY QUARTERS NO.J 15-A, CU CAMPUS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O.,MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GENERAL CONVENOR, MALAPPURAM REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. GENERAL COORDINATOR KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION (GENERAL) TRIVANDRUM. 3. DHANA SALIM, 8TH STANDARD REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND PRINCIPAL, PRESENTAION HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PERINTHALMANNA. SHRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.38060 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had participated in the Malappuram Revenue District Youth Festival. 2. In so far as the writ petition is concerned, she is aggrieved by the results of the Mohiniyattam competition in which also she participated. She was granted 'A' grade with 4th rank. The petitioner contends that the assessment of her performance was erroneous and that as she had to participate in Karnatic Music competition, she could not file appeal within the time specified and that her appeal filed was not even accepted. 3. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that the first prize winner had secured 83, 85 and 82 marks, whereas the petitioner had secured only 72, 70 and 72 marks respectively. Evidently, therefore, there is a wide disparity in the marks that the petitioner had secured. WP(C) No.38060/2008 -2- 4. In so far as the grievance of the petitioner that her appeal was not accepted, the learned Government Pleader submits that the appeal filed was a belated one. It is also pointed out that the fact the petitioner had to participate in Karnatic Music competition is not a reason to have delayed her appeal. According to the learned Government Pleader, the Karnatic Music competition was scheduled at 7.35 pm, whereas the Mohiniyattam competition was held between 9.03 am to 9.13 am in the morning. Evidently, the petitioner had sufficient time and if she wanted, she could have filed the appeal well within the time. If so, the rejection of her appeal as belated is not erroneous. 5. I am not persuaded to find fault with the appellate authority in not accepting the appeal of the petitioner. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg