Haritha D. v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/23RD POUSHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 902 of 2015 (K) -------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------- HARITHA D, AGED 18 YEARS, D/O.G.HIRAN, DEVANKANAM, VALUMMEL ROAD, THRIPUNITHURA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S):

--------------------------

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

2. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, O/O. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM-31.

4. THE GENERAL CONVENOR, 55TH KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2014-15, KOZHIKODE-01.

BYSENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

WP(C).No. 902 of 2015 (K) ------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

------------------------------------- EXT.P1 :

TRUE COPY OF THE PROGRAMME SCHEDULE FOR THE ERNAKULAM REVENUE DISTRICT DATED KALOLSAVAM.

EXT.P2 :

TRUE COPY OF THE RESULTS OF MIMICRY PROGRAMME FOR HIGH SCHOOL BOYS APPEARED AS NEWS ITEM IN MALAYALAMA MANORAMA DATED 3/12/2014.

EXT.P3 :

TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXT.P4 :

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/12/2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

- NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE mbr/

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

----------------------------------- W.P(C). No. 902 of 2015 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner was a participant in the 'Mimicry' competition held at the Revenue District School Kalolsavam, Ernakulam 201415. According to the petitioner, though she performed well, after evaluation she was awarded only the 2nd place. The petitioner contends that during her performance, there was a pandemonium, because of dispute between the organizers and some students, with regard to the confusion in the results of the earlier item. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though she had preferred an appeal, the same was rejected by the 3rd respondent, as borne by Ext.P4, which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.

2.

The learned Government Pleader submits, on instructions that, the 'Stage Manger' has not reported any such disturbance. It is also pointed out that, the 1st price winner obtained 233 marks, while the petitioner obtained only 216 marks and as such, there is a substantial margin of 17 marks.

WP(c). No.902 of 2015 3.

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that there is no tenable ground. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

Pn