IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DECEMBER 2009 / 9TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37761 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- GAURI NANDANA (MINOR ,AGED 12 YEARS) 6TH STANDARD STUDENT, MOUNT CARMEL GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER, V.M.PRADEEP, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.V.C.MADHAVAN, VELLARAYIL HOUSE, SOUTH PAMBADY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS TRIVANDRUM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE CONVENER SUB DISTRICT YOUTH FESTIVAL KOTTAYAM EAST PRINCIPAL M.T.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 5. THE GENERAL CONVENER REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOTSAVAM 2009-2010 KOTTAYAM PRINCIPAL, ST.THOMAS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PALA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ----------------------------- W.P.(C) No.37761 of 2009-M ------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner participated in the sub district level competitions for mono act in the School Kalotsavam for this year. Dissatisfied with the results of the competition, the petitioner filed an appeal which was rejected by Ext.P5. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 seeking the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the item Mono act in the Kottayam Revenue District School Kalotsavam 2009-2010. ii) and to issue such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.” 2. From Ext.P5 it is clear that the only complaint of the petitioner is that the stage in which the petitioner was required to perform was below par. I am not satisfied that this is a ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in so far that handicap was applicable equally to all the participants including the first prize winner. That being so, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly the same is dismissed. ab S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE