Kerala High Court
WP(C)/38088/2008 of MUSHEERA SHERINE Vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION 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. 38088 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUSHEERA SHERINE.M., AGED 15 YEARS, (MINOR), D/O.MUSTHAFA, MAYANTHIRIAKAM,
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. 38088 of 2008(H)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
---------------
MUSHEERA SHERINE.M., AGED 15 YEARS,
(MINOR), D/O.MUSTHAFA, MAYANTHIRIAKAM,
PONNANI, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN
RAMLA.
BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------
1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
MALAPPURAM.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
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. 38088 /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 had participated in the Oppana competitionheld as part of the Revenue .District Youth Festival,Malappuram. She is aggrieved by the assessment of theperformance and the ranking that was given. The appeal filedby her was rejected by Ext.P1. It is challenging theassessment by the Judges and the rejection of the appeal thatthe writ petition has been filed.
Government Pleader on instructions has submitted thedetails of the marks awarded to the prize winners and thepetitioner's group which shows a wide disparity in the marksthat they had secured. Further regarding the competence ofthe judges who have assessed the performance of thepetitioner, it is stated that they were appointed from anapproved panel of judges. Further, the assessment by thejudges and the decision of the Appeal Committee isunanimous. In view of this, I am not persuaded to agree with WPC No.38088/08
-2-
the writ petitioner that the assessment of their performance is vitiated for any reason.
Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.
vi/
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE