IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1699 of 2008(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SREELATHA.K., AGED 17 YEARS, TEAM LEADER THIRUVATHIRA,ERNAKULAM GOVERNMENT GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER BALACHANDRAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.APPU MENON, HARI SREE PISHARATH HOUSE, MUTTATH LANE, KADAVANTHRA. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE CONVENER, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT HIGHER SECONDARY YOUTH FESTIVAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. TEAM LEADER, THIRUVATHIRA, SANSKRIT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, NORTH PARAVOOR. 4. GENERAL CONVENER, STATE LEVEL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL YOUTH FESTIVAL, KUTTIPPURAM. 5. P.SUBHA, JUDGE, THIRUVATHIRA, ERNAKULAM DIST. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL YOUTH FESTIVAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC ================================ W.P.(C)1699/2008 ================================ Dated this the 14th day of January 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner who had participated in the Thiruvathirakali in the District Level Higher Secondary School Youth Festival was given second prize with A-grade. They had filed Ext.P3 appeal and that was also rejected by Ext.P4. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the first prize winners wore a rose flower which is against the settled practice. It is stated that the flower was worn in order to enable the 5th respondent - one of the judges, to identify the particular team which agreed to be favoured. It is submitted that a friend of the 5th respondent was the teacher who taught Thiruvathira to the first prize winner and it is to help the first prize winner that all this was done. 3. It is noticed that this allegation was not raised by the petitioner even in the memorandum of appeal. Therefore the belated contention that is now raised cannot be entertained. Petitioner also contends that in the tabulation sheet, as against the permissible 10 minutes time, for the petitioner alone, it is endorsed that they have taken 11 minutes for completing the performance. It is stated that this W.P.(C)1699/2008 2 was deliberately done. Here again, what is to be noted is that this is a newly added allegation. 4. Petitioner has yet another contention that during the performance at the 9th minute the warning light in yellow was shown indicating them to stop the performance. Insofar as this allegation is concerned that again has not been raised in Ext.P3. It only says that the lights were shown in a careless manner. It is obvious that the allegations that are now raised in the writ petition were not raised even in the memorandum of appeal. There is absolutely no explanation for not raising these grounds before the appellate authority. 5. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, that all the judges were unanimous of opinion about the first prize winner and the difference in marks between the petitioner and the first prize winner is `3’. It is stated that the first prize was awarded based on the superior performance of the first prize winner and not on account of the reasons alleged by the petitioner. 6. In view of the fact that the allegations are raised for the first time as noted above, and on account of the unanimous verdict of the judges and higher marks of the first prize winner, I am not persuaded to entertain the writ petition. Dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE css/