Kerala High Court
WP(C)/38161/2008 of VEENU MOHAN.U. Vs STATE OF KERALA,REP;BY 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. 38161 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VEENA MOHAN, AGED 17 YEARS, V.H.S. STUDENT, FINAL YEAR, V.V.H.S.S.,
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. 38161 of 2008(R)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
---------------
VEENA MOHAN, AGED 17 YEARS, V.H.S.
STUDENT, FINAL YEAR, V.V.H.S.S., AYATHIL, KOLLAM REPRESENTED 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, REPRESENTED 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.
Page 1 of 2
6. PROGRAM CONVENER,
KERALA STATEKALOLSAVAM, TRIVANDRUM.
7. NEETHU SHANAVAS, STD XII, KARUNAGAPPALLY G.H.S.S., KARUNAGAPPALLY.
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.38161 of 2008
===========================
Dated this the 30[th] day of December, 2008
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 the tarpaulin on the stagewas not placed properly and therefore it caused inconvenience tothe petitioner from dancing heavy steps with ease. Petitionerseeks for a direction to permit her to participate in the StateKalolsavam which is scheduled to be started today. LearnedGovernment Pleader submitted that there is a difference of fourmarks between the petitioner and the person who stood as first.A reading of the order Ext.P1 shows that the Appellate Authoritywas of the view that there was no merit in the complaint. I donot find any merit in the challenge made against Ext.P1.
The writ petition is dismissed.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JUDGE
dvs
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…