Kerala High Court
Jewel Cheriyan vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 16TH POUSHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 53 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
JEWEL CHERIYAN
AGED 15 YEARS
XTH CLASS, LITTLE FLOWER ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL KELAKAM
(PO) KANNUR DISTRICT, MINOR REPT: BY MOTHER: JAYA
CHERIYAN, W/O CHERIYAN P JOSEPH,42 YEARS,
PANACKAPATHAKKAL (H) KELAKAM (PO) KANNUR DISTRICT,, PIN
- 670674
BY ADV R.UMASANKAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP:BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001
2 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
KANNUR , KANNUR DISTRICT, [GENERAL CONVENER, KANNUR
REVENUEDISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM], PIN - 670002
3 CHAIRMAN APPEAL COMMITTEE
KANNUR REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM. O/O DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION- KANNUR KANNUR DISTRICT,, PIN -
670002
4 ADDL. DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM JAGATHY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, [GENERAL
CONVENER, KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2024-25], PIN
- 695014
SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:123
WP(C) NO. 53 OF 2025
2
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P2 order passed by the third respondent and to direct the fourth respondent to permit the petitioner and her teammates to participate in the Vanchipattu (girls) [H.S. General] competition in the Kerala School Kalolsavam.
2. The petitioner and her team had participated in the Vanchipattu competition in the Kannur Revenue District School Kalolsavam held on 23.11.2024. Although the petitioner and her team had performed well in the competition, they were awarded only third place. There was an inordinate delay on the part of the second respondent to start the competition. The petitioner and her team had performed in the competition in the "Kuttanadan style." But the judges had given more 2025:KER:123 WP(C) NO. 53 OF 2025 3 marks to the team who performed in the "Aranmula style." The petitioner reasonably believes that the judges favoured the aranmula style. There were inadequate facilities on the stage, and the sound system was defective. Even though the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the third respondent, the same was rejected by the impugned Ext.P2 cryptic order. Ext.P2 is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; Sri. R. Umasankar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Vidya Kuriakose, the learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions in the writ petition.
5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that as per the Kalolsavam Manual, both the styles are permitted in the said competition. The judges had evaluated the competition judiciously and had awarded the first-place team nine marks more than the 2025:KER:123 WP(C) NO. 53 OF 2025 4 petitioner's team. The Stage Manager's report shows that there were no defects in the stage or in the sound system as alleged by the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner had not raised the contention regarding the preference of the Judges for 'aranmula style' before the appellate Authority. It is for the first time in this writ petition that the petitioner has raised the said contention, which is untenable. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
6. The petitioner's case is that even though the petitioner and her team had performed well, the Judges awarded higher marks to the first-placed team because they performed in "aranmula style." Indisputably, the petitioner has not raised the said contention in the appeal before the third respondent. It is for the first time that the said contention is raised before this Court, which is impermissible in law. Moreover, as per the Stage Manager's Report, there were no defects in the 2025:KER:123 WP(C) NO. 53 OF 2025 5 stage or the sound system.
7. In Rhomy Chandra Mohan v Gen. Convenor, Balakalotsavam and Yuvajanotsavam, [(1992) 1 KLJ 515] this Court has held as follows:
"5. It needs no reiteration that the award of marks and ranks in a contest of this nature is primarily the duty and responsibility of the Judges who have been appointed to judge on the merits or demerits of the various contestants. It is also a well-known fact that the ultimate difference between the top notches in such contests is very often marginal and little, and the ranks go by very low differences in marks. But that is inevitable. The judges who are experts react differently from different angles and they have different perceptions. It is not possible to have any absolute standards or absolute judges who react alike in all situations. It is precisely because of this that there is a multiplicity of judges for such contests, so that the sensitivities of the others offset the individual predictions or tastes or ideas of one. Since computers cannot be judges, nor the judges automation, differences based on individual perceptions are inevitable and have to be accepted. This system of assessment has therefore been adopted for the purpose of assessing the relative merit and the authorities have to depend upon the judgment of the judges appointed for the purpose. May be a different set of judges may take a different view of the matter. But that does not mean that the assessment of merits by one set of judges is lacking in validity or otherwise irregular. Assessment of merit is ultimately a matter of objective assessment by a set of impartial judges guided by relevant principles. If that be so, the fact that the petitioner did not get A grade I and was awarded only A grade II cannot be found fault with. As stated earlier, the assessment was made by judges competent for the purpose. It is not possible for this court to sit in appeal over such awards in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is not within the province of this court to re-assess the merits or demerits of 2025:KER:123 WP(C) NO. 53 OF 2025 6 candidates participating in competition made by competent judges appointed for the purpose. This court can interfere only when there is a plain illegality, mala fides, perversity, or other grossly vitiating circumstance in the assessment of merit.
8. This Court has repeatedly reiterated the above exposition of the law in a plethora of judgments. [Read the judgments of the Division Benches of this Court in Akash Chandran v. General Convenor and Director of Public Instructions and Others [2018 (5) KHC 972] and Additional Director of Public Institutions, DPI Office v. Anagha K and others [2022 (5) KHC 473].
9. On analysing the facts and the materials on record, especially the reports and the orders of the experts in the field of art, namely the Judges of the competition and the Appellate Authority, who have concurrently concluded that the petitioner and her teammates were only entitled to the third prize, it is not for this Court to sit in further appeal over the above decisions and take a contrary view.
2025:KER:123 WP(C) NO. 53 OF 2025 7
10. The Judges and Appellate Authorities of the Kalolsavam judge the competition as per the regulations that are in vogue. They cannot be equated with judicial or quasi-judicial functionaries. Their function is confined to judging the competition based on the participant's performance in each event. Their wisdom and reason are final in such matters. Even otherwise, the purported delay in starting the competition and the defects on the stage were equally applicable to all the performing teams.
11. It is trite that judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed not against the decision but the decision-making process. Of course, patent illegality or an error apparent on the face of the decision, which goes to its roots, may vitiate the decision making process.
12. In the instant case, this Court does not find any patent illegality or apparent error in the impugned order, 2025:KER:123 WP(C) NO. 53 OF 2025 8 which warrants the exercise of the power of judicial review.
The writ petition is devoid of any merits and is consequentially dismissed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE mtk/6.01.25 2025:KER:123 WP(C) NO. 53 OF 2025 9 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 53/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THENET RESULT DATED NIL SHOWING THE GRADE AND POSITION OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P2 A COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO:
DDDEKNR/7929/2024/E3 (121)DATED 05.12.2024 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.