IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 23 of 2010(C) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AMY TREESA JAMES,AGED 13 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER JAMES PARAYIL, DONBOSCO HIGHER SECONDALRY SCHOOL,IRINJALAKUDA. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GENERAL CONVENOR CUM-HEADMASTER, LITTLE FLOWER CONVENT HIGH SCHOOL,IRINJALAKUDA. 2. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA. 3. THE CHAIRMAN,APPEAL CIMMITTEE CUM DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKKUDA. 4. DIRECTOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SHRI P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.23 of 2010-C - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner was a contestant fore the item Folk Dance (Girls) for the Irinjalakkuda Sub District Kerala Kalolsavam. It is averred in the writ petition that Exts.P1 to P5 will show that the petitioner is well-versed in the said item and has been continuously winning in the competitions also. 2. This year, the petitioner could obtain only A Grade with second place, going by Ext.P10. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same and the appeal has been rejected as per Ext.P11 and challenging the same, this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Pleader. The case pleaded by the petitioner is that the petitioner's performance was well appreciated by the audience as well as most of the teachers present. But during the programme, the light was very dim and thereby the facial expressions of the petitioner could not be visible to the Judges and the audience. In addition to that, sound was in a high pitch which was only because of the faulty functioning of the electronic equipment. It is also submitted that the appellate authority has not issued wpc 23/2010 2 notice before disposing of the appeal. 4. In Ext.P11, the appellate authority is of the view that no technical flaws have been reported and there is difference of six marks between the petitioner and the other candidate. 5. This Court will not be justified in interfering with the matter, in the light of the general pleas raised in Ground A of the writ petition. The allegation that the light was very dim and the sound was in a high pitch, are not supported by any material. Apart from that, the appellate authority has considered the matter and found that such technical objections were not reported at all. Herein, there is a difference of six marks between the petitioner and the other successful performer. In proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the result of the competition on such grounds. For not offering a personal hearing also, Ext.P11 cannot be faulted. For all these reasons, I find no reason to interfere with the order impugned. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/