Muhammed Rasi v. Deputy Director Of Education,Kollam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/26TH POUSHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 1716 of 2015 (L) --------------------------- PETITIONER :

------------------ MUHAMMED RASI, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.RAHIM, RESIDING AT 'RASI MANZIL', KURIYODU (PO) CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENTS :

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

1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM

2. GENERAL CONVENER/A.D.P.I, KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM,KOZHIKKODU

3. DIRECTOR, VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MUHAMMED SHAFI M. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

bp

WP(C).No. 1716 of 2015 (L) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1:

A TRUE COPY ORDER DATED 10-01-2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL.

--------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE bp

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C) No. 1716 of 2015 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 16th day of January, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner was a participant in 'Arbanamuttu' competition held recently in the Kollam Revenue District School Kalolsavam. According to the petitioner, though the petitioner's team performed well, after evaluation they were awarded only 2nd prize with A Grade, which according to the petitioner is not correct and hence an appeal was preferred, contending that stage was not cleaned after the performance of previous team. But the appeal was dismissed, which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that there is absolutely no pith or substance in the averments raised in the writ petition. It is stated that the Judges who evaluated performance were experts in the field and that there was no defect to the stage. It is pointed out that nothing prevented the petitioner to have cleaned the stage before their performance; it was required.

W.P.(C) No. 1716 of 2015 : 2 :

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) kmd