IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1430 of 2011(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- NIVYA V.NAIR, AGED 17 YEARS (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER V.N.VIKRAMAN NAIR, AGED 58 YEARS, VADATHITTAYIL HOUSE, VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O, ERNAKULAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VIPIN SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE SRI.ABHISHEK KURIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001. 2. CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, THRIKKAKKARA 682030. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 1430 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T In the Ernakulam Revenue District Kalolsavam, petitioner participated in the item Tamil Recitation. She secured only 8th prize with A grade. According to the petitioner, there were certain confusions, which preceded their performance and on account of the uncertainty, she could not perform well. It is stated that despite having urged this ground, her appeal has been rejected by Ext.P3. It is challenging Ext.P3 and seeking a direction for her participation in the State Level Competition, the writ petition has been filed. 2. True, going by the averments in the writ petition, there were certain confusions preceding her performance on stage. But fact remains that the petitioner did have the opportunity and in that performance she could secure only 8th prize. Going by the appellate order, there was a vide disparity of 35 marks between the petitioner and the first prize winner. In such circumstances, I do not think the petitioner was in any manner superior to the first prize winner, who was also not been impleaded in this writ WPC No. 1430/11 :2 : petition. I see no reason to interfere. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp