Madhav A Nair v. The General Convenor/Deputy Director Of Education
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/25TH POUSHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 1408 of 2015 (A) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
----------------------- MADHAV A.NAIR, AGED 13 YEARS (MINOR), STANDARD VIII, HIGH SCHOOL, CHETTIKULANGARA, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER ANIL KUMAR. G.
BY ADVS.SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN, SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. THE GENERAL CONVENER/ DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOTSAVAM 2014 - 2015, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.
2. THE CHAIRMAN/ DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, APPEAL COMMITTEE, ALAPPUZHA REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOTSAVAM 2014 - 2015, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.
3. THE GENERAL CONVENER, KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOTSAVAM 2014 - 15, KOZHIKODE.
BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED SHAFI. M.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 1408 of 2015 (A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P-1:
A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C1/19500/2014 (117) DATED 12.01.2015 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
.............................................................................. W.P.(C)No.1408 OF 2015 ......................................................................... Dated this the 15th January, 2015
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was a participant in the event 'Aksharaslokam competition' in the Alappuzha Revenue District School Kalolsavam, 2014-15 . Since he could not secure the first prize in the item, he is not in a position to compete in the State Level competition. In the said circumstance he preferred an appeal, which came to be rejected as borne by Ext.P1. The main ground raised in the appeal was that there was lack sound clarity due to defective mike system. The appeal was rejected observing that there was no pith or substance in the contentions in the appeal.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader, who submits on the basis of the instruction received, that there was a difference of '5' marks between the petitioner and the first prize winner. Appeal was rejected after viewing the video recording. There was no plea of malafides.
This Court finds that no tenable ground has been raised by
W.P.(C)No.1408 OF 2015 the petitioner to call for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk