Kerala High Court
WP(C)/38176/2008 of SOUPARNIKA.A.S Vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION 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. 38176 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SOUPARNIKA A.S., (MINOR), FORT GIRLS MISSION H.S.FORT, TRIVANDRUM,
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. 38176 of 2008(T)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
---------------
SOUPARNIKA A.S., (MINOR),
FORT GIRLS MISSION H.S.FORT,
TRIVANDRUM, REP. BY HER FATHER
S.ANIL KUMAR.
BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
-----------------
1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
TRIVANDRUM.
2. THE CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE,
KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2008-09,
SUB DISTRICT LEVEL COMPETITION,
(DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TRIVANDRUM)
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.38176 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 is aggrieved by the order Ext.P5 rejecting theappeal by the Appeal Committee. The petitioner stood as secondin the event. Petitioner seeks permission to participate in theevent Mohiniattam in State Youth Festival which is scheduled tobe started from today. Learned Government Pleader submittedthat there is a difference of ten marks between the petitionerand the candidate who stood as first. The allegation raised in theappeal is that there was defect in the sound system and therewas no sufficient light in the stage, which was found not correctby the Appellate Authority. I do not see any ground to interferewith Ext.P5.
The writ petition is dismissed.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JUDGE
dvs