IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 763 of 2008(N) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------ ANITTA CLARANCE, MINOR 13 YEARS, STANDARD VIII, T.K.M.H.S.SCHOOL, KARICODE, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN SAJINI CLARANCE, KAITHAVALAPPIL HOUSE, SNEHA NAGAR-126, ULIYACOVIL, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SRI.SAIJU. S RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE GENERAL CONVENER, KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2077-2008, KOLLAM. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE, KOLLAM REVENUE SCHOOL YOUTH FESTIVAL 2007-2008, (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION), KOLLAM. 4. R.S.VARSHA, 1ST PRIZE WINNER, KERALA NADANAM, 20TH KOLLAM, REVENUE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM, G.H.S.KARUNAGAPPALLY, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN. 5. PARVATHY G.J., 1ST PRIZE WINNER, MOHINIYATTAM, 20TH KOLLAM REVENUE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM, G.H.S.H.S., BHUTHAKULAM, PARAVUR, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN. R1 TO 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 763 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: January 7, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P6 and P7 and a direction is sought to permit the petitioner to participate in the Kerala State School Kalolsavam for the items Mohiniyattam and Kerala Natanam. 2. It is stated that in Mohiniyattam and Kerala Natanam, respondents 4 and 5 received first prize. Against the ranking so given, petitioner filed appeals which were rejected by Exts.P6 and P7. Impugning Exts.P6 and P7 and the ranking assigned to her, petitioner submits that the CD Player that was provided by the authorities at the time when the petitioner performed Mohiniyattam was defective and that this affected her performance on the stage. This aspect is seen considered by the appeal committee in Ext.P7 wherein it is stated that the CD Player that was provided was common for all participants and therefore the contention of the petitioner has been rejected in this respect. 3. Next what is contended is that the judgment rendered by WP(C) 763/2008 Page numbers the judges appointed for evaluating the performance is vitiated by mala fides. While the petitioner alleges mala fides against the judges who assessed her performance, none of the judges against whom mala fides are alleged have been impleaded in the writ petition. It is settled law that if mala fides are alleged against a person, such person should be made a party to the proceedings. In the absence of such parties, I refuse to go into the allegations levelled against them by the petitioner. 4. That apart, on instructions, the learned Government Pleader also pointed out that for Mohiniyattam the first prize winner has secured 17 marks more than the petitioner and that all the judges have uniformly assessed her performance to be better. Similar is the case with Kerala Natanam also where the judges had uniformly assessed the first rank holder's performance to be superior to that of the petitioner. In view of this I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-