IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1984 of 2011(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- DENNIS K.A., MINOR, AGED 14 YEARS, TEAM LEADER, PARICHAMUTTU (HS GENERAL), SILVER HILLS HSS, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN & FATHER, C.L.ANIL, 37, NGO QUARTERS, VELLIMADUKUNNU, P.O.KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.SUNIL SMT.S.CHITHRA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION & CONVENOR, 51ST KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2010-2011, M.T.SEMINARY H.S.S., MUTTAMBALLAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.PIN- 686 001 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & CHAIRMAN OF THE APPEAL COMMITTEE, KOZHIKODE.PIN- 673 001 R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.1984 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 21st January, 2011 J U D G M E N T In the Calicut Revenue District Youth Festival, petitioner's team participated in "Parichamuttu". They were given 2nd place with A Grade. Appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by Ext.P1 order. A reading of Ext.P1 order shows that the petitioner complained that the banner provided on the stage was flying and that affected their performance. In Ext.P1 order, the allegation of the petitioner has been found to be incorrect by the appellate authority. 2. In view of the allegations in the writ petition, learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions in the matter. Learned Government Pleader submits that the Stage Manager did not receive any complaint from the petitioner about the banner in the stage or that the banner affected their performance in any manner. Apart from the averments in the writ petition, nothing has been placed by the petitioner to substantiate his contentions. This Court cannot accept the unsubstantiated contentions raised by the petitioner and upset the decision taken either by the Judges or the appellate authority. W.P (C) No.1984 of 2011 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Ext.P2. It was contended that while in Ext.P1, the difference of marks 9 was found to be considerable. In Ext.P2, the difference of 14 marks was found to be negligible. It is true that there is such an inconsistency in Exts. P1 and P2. However, Ext.P2 order shows that the appellate authority's decision was based on other facts such as the superior performance and also the report of the stage manager which supported the appellant in that case. 4. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the appeal other grounds were urged and that those grounds were not considered by the appellate authority, I am not in a position to enquire into that contention for the reason that appellate order does not show anything other than about the banner provided on the stage as urged before the appellate authority. That apart, appeal memorandum has not been produced by the petitioner. Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge