IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38767 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SAPNA FATHIMA (MINOR), GIRL'S HIGH SCHOOL KARUNAGAPPALLY, REP. BY FATHER E.ABDUL SALAM, SABANA COTTAGE, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.PAVITHRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE APPEAL COMMITTEE, DISTRICT SCHOOL SCIENCE, I.T.MATHEMATICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE WORK EXPERIENCE, KOLLAM, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 38767 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order rejecting an appeal filed by her. 2. Facts show that the petitioner participated in the District School Science, I.T, Social Science and Mathematics Work Experience Fair 2010-11 held at Kollam. It is stated that the petitioner made a working model of sun and earth and that the judges have awarded, the petitioner 3rd prize. Aggrieved by the prize given, petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal, which is rejected by Ext.P4. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that against the provisions of the manual, the Chairman of the Appellate Committee alone considered the appeal and passed Ext.P4 order. It is also contended that the appeal was rejected without any application of mind. 3. However, the learned Government Pleader on instruction rightly points out that Ext.P4 is only an order communicating the decision of the Appellate Committee, and that, the appeal was considered by the Appellate Committee WPC No.38767/10 :2 : itself. 4. First of all, the first prize winner or the second prize winner have not been impleaded in this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is defective for non joinder of necessary parties. That apart, in Ext.P3 appeal, petitioner has only stated that the evaluation of the judges was erroneous, without in any manner elaborating her contentions. This contention though vague had been rightly appreciated by the Appellate Committee by rejecting the appeal by Ext.P4. I see no reason to interfere. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp