Kerala High Court
WP(C)/38079/2008 of STEEFN GEORGE Vs STATE OF KERALA AND 5 OTHERS 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. 38079 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- STEEFN GEORGE, S/O.N.R.GEORGE, AGED 18 YEARS, KUTTIKKATTU NEYYAN HOUSE,
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. 38079 of 2008(G)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
---------------
STEEFN GEORGE, S/O.N.R.GEORGE, AGED 18
YEARS, KUTTIKKATTU NEYYAN HOUSE,
KALLETTUMKARA P.O., IRINJALAKUDA,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS
SRI.PHIJO JOSEPH
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT.,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TVM.
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR
4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR
5. CONVENOR, THRISSUR REVENUE DISTRICT
KALOTSAVA COMMITTEE, THRISSUR
6. APPEAL COMMITTEE,
THRISSUR REVENUE DISTRICT
KALOTSAVAM, REP. BY DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL
OFFICER, THRISSUR.
BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA
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.38079 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.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner's team had participated in the RevenueDistrict School Kalotsavam Thrissur District in Drama andhe is aggrieved by the assessment of the performanceand the prize awarded. Admittedly, he has not filed anyappeal within the time as provided in the Rules andtherefore it was rejected.
In this writ petition, although several contentions havebeen raised, the learned Government Pleader oninstructions submits that as against the 235 marks securedby first prize winner, the petitioner has secured only 190.Evidently that is a wide disparity between the first prizewinner and the petitioner. In any case, the assessment madeby the experts in the field was unanimous and nothing hasbeen placed on record to conclude that the assessment is WP(c).No.38079/2008 /2/
vitiated for any reason. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the contentions raised by the petitioner.
Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.
vi/
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
WP(c).No.38079/2008 /2/