Kerala High Court
WP(C)/38160/2008 of VEENA MOHAN U. Vs STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED SECRETARY 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. 38160 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- VEENA MOHAN, AGED 17 YEARS, V.H.S.STUDENT, FINAL YEARS,
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. 38160 of 2008(P)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------------
VEENA MOHAN, AGED 17 YEARS,
V.H.S.STUDENT, FINAL YEARS,
V.V.H.S.S., AYATHIL, KOLLAM,
REP. BY HER FATHER MOHAN BABU, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNANA CHETTIYAR, VISHNU SAILAM, PATTATHANAM, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY
ADV. A.PARVATHI MENON
RESPONDENTS:
------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM.
3. DIRECTOR OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY
EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM.
4. CONVENER, KOLLAM DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM, KOLLAM.
5. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM.
6. PROGRAM CONVENER,
KERALA STATE KALOLSAVAM, TRIVANDRUM.
7. NEETHU SHANAVAS,
STD.XII, KARUNAGAPPALLY G.H.S.S., KARUNAGAPPALLY.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MEERA.M.
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.38160 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
Petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order passed by the Chairmanof the Appeal Committee. The main ground for challengingExt.P1 is that the appeal was dismissed without hearing thepetitioner. It is also contended that there was a defect in the CDplayer arranged by the authorities as there was voltagefluctuations. Petitioner seeks for a direction to permit her toparticipate in the State Kalolsavam which is scheduled to starttoday. A reading of the order Ext.P1 shows that the AppellateAuthority was of the view that there was no merit in thecomplaint and the person who stood first obtained 15 marksmore than the petitioner. I do not find any merit in the challengeagainst Ext.P1.
The writ petition is dismissed.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JUDGE
dvs