IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38149 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. HILARI, S/O. BABUJI, AGED 14, KAVUMPURATHU HOUSE, MEZHULI P.O., PATHANMTHITTA DISTRICT. (MINOR REPRESENTED BY K.V. BABUJI(FATHER ) K.V.BABUJI, AGED 43, S/O.VASUKUTTY (LATE) KAVUMPURATHU HOUSE, NEYVELI P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SMT.R.LEELA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY , DEPARTEMNT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.\ 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE GENERAL CONVENER, PATHANAMTHITTA REVENUE DISTRICT KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION 26/12/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.38149/2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner's team has participated in Chendamelam in the Revenue District Level Youth Festival, Pathanamthitta Revenue District held on 16.12.2008. The team was awarded B-Grade and aggrieved by the same an appeal was filed to the 3rd respondent. Petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent has not disposed of the appeal so far, although in terms of the bye laws, the appeal ought to have been decided within 5 days. It is contended that the delay in the disposal of the appeal is deliberate and is intended to prevent the petitioner's team from participating in the State level Youth Festival. 2. The Government Pleader has obtained instructions and has produced the proceedings dated 22.12.2008 issued by the Chairman of the Appeal Committee rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid proceedings, the case of the petitioner regarding the pendency of the appeal is only to be rejected. That apart, it is also seen that while the first prize winner has secured 233 marks, the petitioner's team has secured only 187 marks. Apart from WP(c).No.38149/2008 /2/ that it is also stated that both the judges and the Appeal Committee were unanimous in their decisions. In view of all these, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.38149/2008 /2/