Kerala High Court
WP(C)/38060/2008 of SHONA AJITH K.P. Vs GENERAL CONVENOR, MALAPPURAM REVENUE on 26 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38060 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHONA AJITH K.P. REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN, K.P.AJITH KUMAR, S/O. K.P.MANUKUTTY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930
WP(C).No. 38060 of 2008(E)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
---------------
SHONA AJITH K.P. REPRESENTED BY
GUARDIAN, K.P.AJITH KUMAR, S/O. K.P.MANUKUTTY
QUARTERS NO.J 15-A, CU CAMPUS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY
P.O.,MALAPPURAM DIST.
BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------
1. GENERAL CONVENOR,
MALAPPURAM REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2. GENERAL COORDINATOR
KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM
DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION (GENERAL)
TRIVANDRUM.
3. DHANA SALIM, 8TH STANDARD REPRESENTED
BY NEXT FRIEND PRINCIPAL, PRESENTAION
HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PERINTHALMANNA.
SHRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.38060 of 2008
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 26[th] day of December, 2008
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner had participated in the MalappuramRevenue District Youth Festival.
2. In so far as the writ petition is concerned, she isaggrieved by the results of the Mohiniyattam competition inwhich also she participated. She was granted 'A' grade with 4[th]rank. The petitioner contends that the assessment of herperformance was erroneous and that as she had to participatein Karnatic Music competition, she could not file appeal withinthe time specified and that her appeal filed was not evenaccepted.
3. The learned Government Pleader on instructionssubmits that the first prize winner had secured 83, 85 and 82marks, whereas the petitioner had secured only 72, 70 and 72marks respectively. Evidently, therefore, there is a widedisparity in the marks that the petitioner had secured.
WP(C) No.38060/2008
-2-
4. In so far as the grievance of the petitioner that her appeal was not accepted, the learned Government Pleadersubmits that the appeal filed was a belated one. It is alsopointed out that the fact the petitioner had to participate inKarnatic Music competition is not a reason to have delayed herappeal. According to the learned Government Pleader, theKarnatic Music competition was scheduled at 7.35 pm,whereas the Mohiniyattam competition was held between 9.03am to 9.13 am in the morning. Evidently, the petitioner hadsufficient time and if she wanted, she could have filed theappeal well within the time. If so, the rejection of her appealas belated is not erroneous.
5. I am not persuaded to find fault with the appellateauthority in not accepting the appeal of the petitioner.
I am not persuaded to find fault with the appellate The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)