IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1720 of 2011(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ABDUL MANAF.P.KHARIM(MINOR),STANDARD XII M.G.M.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITA DISSTRICT,PIN-689101,REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND GUARDIAN,LAILA KHARIM,AGED 43, W/O.ABDUL KAREEM,RESIDING AT THEEDIYEL HOUSE, P.C.KAVALA.P.O,PARIPPAD, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE GENERAL CONVENOR,51ST KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2010-2011,KOTAYAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVALLA,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN-689101. 3. THE APPEAL COMMITTEE,REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN,OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,THIRUVALLA,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689101. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 1720 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T In the Pathanamthitta Revenue District Kalolsavam, petitioner's team participated in the item Kolkali. While the petitioner's team claims to have secured 3rd prize with A Grade, learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner's team was awarded only 4th prize with A Grade. Be that as it may, fact remains that there is a wide disparity of 26 marks between the petitioner and the first prize winner. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was aggrieved by the assessment of performance by the judges, who according to him, were unqualified. It is stated that as none were available to file an appeal, he also could not file any appeal. 3. As far as the competence of the judges is concerned, petitioner has not disclosed who the judges were and in what respect were they unqualified. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader asserts for the position that the judges were qualified and were therefore appointed. In so far as the filing of WPC No. 1720/11 :2 : appeal is concerned also, instructions from the learned Government Pleader is to the effect that while the competition was in the late evening of 12th of January 2011, officers were available for receiving the appeals till 3 a.m on 13/1/2011. 4. In the light of these facts as disclosed by the learned Government Pleader, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp