IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 92 of 2008(J) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SREELAKSHMI(MINOR), D/O M.K.MADHU, AGED 13 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER M.K.MADHU, RESIDING AT GOVERNMENT QUARTERS, E/29 A, PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION IDUKKI, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THODUPUZHA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685584. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER THODUPUZHA,(CONVENER, APPEAL COMMITTEE, ARAKKULAM SUB DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM-2007-08) OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL, OFFICE, THODUPUZHA. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER ARAKKULAM, OFFICE OF THE ASST. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER ARAKKULAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. THE GENERAL CONVENER, ARAKKULAM EDUCATIONAL SUB DISTRICT, SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2007-08, HEADMASTER, STHS, THUDANGANADU, THUDANGANADU P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. THE GENERAL CONVENER, 20TH IDUKI REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2007-08, ST. THOMAS HIGH SCHOOL ERATTAYAR, ERATTAYAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 92 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: January 2, 2008 JUDGMENT Although the petitioner has challenged Exts.P11 and P12, in view of the fact that Kuchippudi, the item covered by Ext.P11 is already over, submissions are confined to Ext.P12. 2. Petitioner was a participant of Folk Dance also in which she was assigned second rank with A Grade. It was aggrieved by the ranking so given that she had filed Ext.P4 appeal and that resulted in Ext.P12 order. In the writ petition, in paragraph 3, it is stated that the petitioner could not perform well because of an injury sustained by her from the stage due to poor stage management. In so far as this plea of the petitioner is concerned, it is stated in Ext.P12 that the stage manager had given a report that there has not been any such accident. It is also stated in Ext.P12 that of the three judges, two had given the first rank holder higher ranking than the petitioner and the difference between the petitioner and the 1st rank holder is 8 marks. It is stated that it is on evaluation of WP(C) 92/2008 Page numbers the performance of the petitioner that she has been suitably ranked. On these reasonings, the Appellate Authority declined to interfere with the assessment. Petitioner has not produced any material to suggest that the evaluation of the judges or the appellate body is vitiated. Ext.P12 is a well reasoned order and I do not find any perversity in it. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-