IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4051 of 2011(F) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. RESHMA KASIM,AGED 16 YEARS, D/O.CHERIYED ATH VEETTIL KASIM, KOMBARA DESOM, IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. AFNA NOUSHAD, AGED 16 YEARS,D/O. KALAKATH VEETTIL KALABHAVAN NOUSHAD,IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. SREEPRIYANADH, AGED 16 YEARS,D/O SREENILAYAM VEETTIL SURENDRAN,ANANDAPURAM DESOM, VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. HRIDHYA.N.B,AGED 16 YEARS,D/O. NADUVALAPPIL VEETTIL BABU, IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. ANANTHU.P.M,AGED 16 YEARS,S/O.POTTAYIL VEETTIL GOPALAKRISHNAN,MADAYIKONAM VILLAGE, DESOM,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 6. ANITHA GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 16 YEARS, D/O.KARAKATT VEETTIL GOPALAKRISHNAN, MADAYIKONAM VILLAGE, DESOM,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 7. ASWIN HUSSAIN, AGED 16 YEARS, S/O.KALAKKATH VEETTIL SALIHUSSAIN, IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. MINOR PETITIONERS REPRESENTED BY 1ST PETITIONER'S FATHER: C.A.KASIM, CHERIYEDATH VEETTIL, KOMBARA DESOM IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT svs ..........2/-... ...2... WPC. NO.4051/2011 RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THRIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 01. 2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING,SANTHINAGAR, THRIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 01. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR - 688 001. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No. 4051 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 8th February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are students of S.N. Higher Secondary School, Irinjalakuda. They participated in the Revenue District Youth Festival and on the strength of appellate orders, they participated in the State Level Youth Festival. In this writ petition, they are challenging the provisions of Ext.P5 Manual governing the conduct of Youth Festival to the extent it contains clauses 11 and 12. 2. Clause 11 of the Manual provides that those who participate in the State Level Competition on the strength of appellate orders will get grace mark, only if such candidates secure higher marks than the participant from the District concerned. Clause 12 provides that such participant will have to make a deposit of `5000 and that unless candidates secure the mark as provided in clause 11 , the amount will not be refunded. 3. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that grades are to be awarded as per provisions contained in Rule 1.05 of the Manual and those W.P (C) No. 4051 of 2011 2 who secure the grades are entitled to grace marks as provided in Rule 1.08. It is stated that clause 11 is contrary to the aforesaid two provisions . He also impugns the provision in clause 12 requiring the deposit and its forfeiture. 4. First of all petitioners have already participated in the State Level Competition accepting the terms of the Manual and have approached this Court challenging the aforesaid provisions only after failing to secure marks in terms of the provisions of the Manual. By their conduct, they have acquired to the provisions of the Manual and therefore they are estopped from challenging the provisions of the Manual. 5. Even on merits, I am not satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to succeed in this writ petition. Going by the provisions of the Manual, the only one from a District is entitled to participate in one item. As a result of the appellate orders secured, the number of candidates are increased and it is therefore that the provisions in clause 11 provided that only if those candidates who W.P (C) No. 4051 of 2011 3 participate on the strength of appellate orders secure higher marks, then only they will get the benefit of grace marks. 6. Having regard to the above, I see nothing objectionable in the provision. For similar reasons, I do not find any merit as against the provisions in clause 11 requiring deposit of Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge