JUDGMENT : Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. The State and its officials are in appeal against the judgment dated 30.03.2017 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2147 of 2017. 2. We have heard the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, and with their consent, we are disposing of this appeal at this stage itself. 3. The facts not being in dispute are noted hereunder: The respondent wanted to contest in District Sastrotsavam 2016-2017 (District Level Science Competition). She did so, but secured 4th position. The scheme of the things are that the first two ranked persons from each district are then called for State level competition. Depending upon the merit as per the State level competition, they are awarded certificate, grade and grace marks for their matriculation examination. In order to get Grade 'A', a candidate has to score more than 70 marks. Similar are the provisions for grace marks and certificates. Ordinarily, the respondent was not eligible for the State level competition. But, she moved the Kerala Lok Ayukta. The Lok Ayukta permitted her to compete in the State level competition subject to the condition that in case, she does not come within the top three, she would forfeit her deposit of Rs.20,000/-. In the State level competition, she secured 12th position. She secured 72% marks, but notwithstanding that, she was neither given grade nor granted recognition certificate in order to grant grace marks. This was because of clause (j) of Chapter I of Manual for The Kerala School Science, Mathematics & Social Science Work Training Programme, 2009 (Exhibit P7). Clause (j) of Exhibit P7 reads thus: "(j) Students who are participating in the State-level Competitions, on the strength of the orders from Courts, will be allowed to participate in the competition, only if they had obtained more points than the competitors in the same item from the respective Districts, and selected to participate in the event and granted Certificates." 4. The grievance of the respondent was that even though she secured 72% and was ranked 12th, she was neither given certificate nor grace marks nor grade. Whereas the persons who were ranked lesser in merit and scored lesser marks were not only given certificates, but also given grades and grace marks in matriculation. This is hostile discrimination. 5. The grievance of the respondent was that even though she secured 72% and was ranked 12th, she was neither given certificate nor grace marks nor grade. Whereas the persons who were ranked lesser in merit and scored lesser marks were not only given certificates, but also given grades and grace marks in matriculation. This is hostile discrimination. 5. On the other hand, the State submits that as per the regulations, only two persons from a district is allowed to participate in the State level competition and the third person comes by virtue of a court order. He is a different category. It is not a hostile discrimination, but a rational classification. We need not go into this question, for, a Division Bench of this Court has already dealt with that, in the case of The Secretary to Government, Thiruvananthapuram and others v. Sangeeth Balakrishnan and another, being W.A. No.1843 of 2014. This part of the regulation was seriously deprecated. 6. We re-iterate the above decision. We only add two things to it. Firstly, it must be noted that ultimate competition is the State level competition. District-wise merit lists are not made. Having been permitted to take part in the State level competition, there cannot be any further discrimination on the ground of State level considerations. Any child would feel severely hurt if less meritorious children are given grace marks and certificates and meritorious students on such technical pleas are denied the incentives. This is hostile discrimination. The second is merely because a person approaches a court, he cannot be put on disadvantage. That would be obstructing access to court and destructive of rule of law, if not contempt. 7. No person, may he/she be a grown up or a child, can be discriminated on the ground of court order for having approached the court. Once he/she participated in a State level competition and secured a position, he/she has to be given the benefits of that position. Thus, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. 8. However, we may note one position. As per the regulation, only two persons from each district, according to their merit, are permitted to participate in the State level competition. There is no place for the third. Thus, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. 8. However, we may note one position. As per the regulation, only two persons from each district, according to their merit, are permitted to participate in the State level competition. There is no place for the third. As such, if any Court or authority is considering an application of any person, before passing final orders, it would have to ensure that by permitting the person, two candidate rule is not breached, for, the third candidate is not permitted. So, when any authority or court permits one candidate, it must pass a consequential order dis-entitling atleast one another, so that there are only two candidates permitted from a district. If that is done, then the clause quoted above, would be redundant and cannot be resorted to. With the observations aforesaid, this writ appeal is dismissed.