IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2011 / 28TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1602 of 2011(A) --------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- KRISHNA JYOTHI S.J., S/O.SAJEEVAN, +2 STUDENT, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MANGADU, RESIDING AT KALEELIL THEKKATHIL VEEDU, AYITHIL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SMT.R.S.SREEVIDYA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE GENERAL CONVENER, KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOTSWAVAM, 2010-2011, KOTTAYAM-686001. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE (DEPUTY DIRECTOR) KOLLAM, KOLLAM REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOTSWAVAM, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691306. 4. PROGRAM COMMITTEE CONVENOR, MOOKABHINAYAM (MIME), KOLLAM REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOTSWAVAM, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691306. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.1602 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 18th January, 2011 J U D G M E N T In the Kollam District Youth Festival School Kalolsavam, petitioner's team participated in the item "Mookabhinayam". They were awarded second prize with A Grade. Complaining of irregularity in the assessment of the performance by the Judges, they filed an appeal and that was rejected by Ext.P4 order. It is challenging Ext. P4 order this writ petition is filed. 2. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that against the instructions for performance which required that the participant shall not speak during the performance, sound of the participants was clearly audible. Answering this plea, learned Government Pleader submits that the Stage Manager has denied such an allegation. In so far as the allegation that though the instructions required are that the face of the participant should be covered with make up and that the make up of some of the participants had fallen down, it is pointed out that such contention was not W.P (C) No.1602 of 2011 2 raised by the petitioner in the appeal filed. It is also pointed out that as between the first prize winning team and the petitioner the difference of marks was 16. The facts being as pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, I see no reason to interfere with the writ petition. Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma