Kerala High Court
WP(C)/38195/2008 of KUMARI AASHMIMOL.S Vs THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS on 30 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 30TH DECEMBER 2008 / 9TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38195 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KUMARI AASHMI MOL.S., PLUS ONE STUDENT, G.M.H.S.S., ATTINGAL,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
TUESDAY, THE 30TH DECEMBER 2008 / 9TH POUSHA 1930
WP(C).No. 38195 of 2008(V)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
---------------
KUMARI AASHMI MOL.S., PLUS ONE STUDENT,
G.M.H.S.S., ATTINGAL, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER
ANITHA SURESH, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.SURESH, A.A.LAND, POOVANPARA, ALAMCODE P.O.
BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
-----------------
1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE GENERAL CONVENOR FOR KERALA SCHOOL
KALOLSAVAM 2008-2009, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER LAKSHMI NARAYAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 30/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J
============================W.P.(C).No.38195 of 2008
===========================
Dated this the 30[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.
JUDGMENT
Heard the Government Pleader also.
Petitioner had participated in Mohiniattom (Girls) inRevenue District Kerala School Kalolsavam 2008-2009.Petitioner was placed in A grade with second place in the abovesaid competition. The allegation is that in spite of the fact thatshe was able to perform, she was not given the first grade andperformance was discontinued since the mike operator switch offthe volume before completing the programme. LearnedGovernment Pleader submitted that there is a difference of 12marks between the petitioner and the candidate who stood asfirst. A reading of the order Ext.P3 shows that the AppellateAuthority found that the reasons pointed out by the petitioner inthe appeal cannot be entertained and are not supported by anyfacts. They have referred to the report of the stage Manageralso. The writ petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JUDGE