IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37106 of 2010(K) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- AAQUIB.M.A,PLUS-TWO STUDENT, VIDHYADHIRAJA VIDHYA BHAVAN,HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,CHEERAKALA,ALWAYE REP.BY HIS FATHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN, ABOOBACKER, MOOKKILLAMPARAMB , EAST KADUNGALLOOR, U.C.COLLEGE, ALWAYE. BY ADV. SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER/CHAIRMAN, APPEALL COMMITTEE, ALWAYE, SUB DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOTSAVAM, DEO OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, ALWAYE – 683 101. 2. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, ALWAYE – 683 101. 3. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 4. SECRETARY,GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 37106 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner's team participated in the item Kolkali Saghom in connection with the Sub District level Kalolsavam. They got 2nd prize with 'A' grade. Aggrieved, they filed an appeal and that was rejected by Ext.P3 order. It is challenging the above, this writ petition is filed. 2. According to the petitioner, the reason for giving them the 2nd prize is that according to the judges two of the participants collided each other. Although petitioner contended that this assumption is factually wrong, a reading of Ext.P3 order shows that this contention of the petitioner has been examined and rejected by the appeal committee. There is absolutely no material in the writ petition to conclude that the factual findings of the appeal committee is incorrect. In such situation, this court will not be justified in interfering with Ext.P3 order. 3. Further the learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the 1st prize winning team secured W.P.(C).No. 37106 OF 2010 2 252 marks whereas the petitioner's team secured only 242 marks. This wide disparity in the marks also show that the performance of the 1st prize winning team is far superior to that of the petitioner. For these reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE dmb