Kerala High Court
Aiswarya Vinod vs State Of Kerala on 13 December, 2024
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 44378 OF 2024 1
2024:KER:94545
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 44378 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
AISWARYA VINOD
AGED 17 YEARS
D/O. VINOD P , ALIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAPPADU P.O.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT , BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS
FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN VINOD P, AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O. PRABHAKARAN, ALIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAPPADU P.O.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686508
BY ADV SRI.E.S.ASHRAF
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
3 THE APPEAL COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
KOTTAYAM REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2024-
2025, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 695036
4 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 695036
BY SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.12.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 44378 OF 2024 2
2024:KER:94545
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of December, 2024 The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P3 order and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner and her team to participate in the Skit-English (HSS) competition in the Kerala School Kalolsavam to be held in January, 2025.
2. The petitioner and her team had participated in the Skit-English competition at the Kottayam Revenue District School Kalolsavam-2024-2025. The competition was held on 28.11.2024 at 20:00 hours. The petitioner and her team were hopeful of getting the first prize. However, due to the technical snags in the audio system and lack of space constraints on the stage, they were unable to perform well. The Judges of the competition erroneously awarded the petitioner's team WP(C) NO. 44378 OF 2024 3 2024:KER:94545 the second place. Although, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent, the same was perfunctorily dismissed by a cryptic and non-speaking order. The findings in Ext.P3 are unsustainable in law. Therefore, Ext.P3 may be set aside and the petitioner may be permitted to participate in the Kerala School Kalolsavam. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and 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 Stage Manager's report there were no defects in the audio system or the stage. The Judges had rightly evaluated the competition and awarded the marks on the basis of the performance of the teams. The decision was reconfirmed by the Appellate Authority. There is no illegality in Ext.P3 order warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
WP(C) NO. 44378 OF 2024 4
2024:KER:94545
6. The petitioner's case is that her team's performance was adversely affected due to the technical snag in the audio system and the space constraints on the stage.
7. Indisputably, all the other teams for the competition performed at the same time on the same stage. The Stage Manager's report shows that there was no error in the audio system. Moreover, the petitioner had not raised any complaint before or during their performance. It was after the results were declared that the petitioner has raised the above grievances.
8. The judges of the above competition and the Appellate Authority have considered the petitioner's grievances and have concluded that they are only entitled to the second prize.
9. In Rhomy Chandra Mohan v Gen. Convenor, Balakalotsavam and Yuvajanotsavam, [(1992) KHC 211] this Court has held as follows: WP(C) NO. 44378 OF 2024 5
2024:KER:94545 "4. 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 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. So far as that aspect is concerned, the petitioner has raised certain grounds in the original petition. According to him, the judges who assessed the merits of the Bharatanatyam candidates were substitutes appointed on the spot for the original judges, without any enquiry regarding their qualifications for appointment as judges. It is also stated that Unnikrishnan, one of the judges was only a student studying Bharatanatyam and that Smt. Babita is from the same district. Thereby, it is stated, both of them are not qualified to be appointed as judges. It is also pointed out that no video photography of the competition was taken despite the mandate of the Rules for the purpose."
WP(C) NO. 44378 OF 2024 6
2024:KER:94545
10. This Court has repeatedly reiterated the principles 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].
11. On analysing the facts and the materials on record, especially on considering the reports and 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's team was only entitled to the second prize, it is not for this Court to sit in further appeal over the above decisions and take a contrary view.
12. It is discernible that the Appellate Authority has considered the Judges' observations and the marks of the rival teams and the Stage Manager's report and have rejected the appeal by the impugned order.
WP(C) NO. 44378 OF 2024 7
2024:KER:94545
13. 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 technical snags and space constraints on the stage were equally applicable to all the performing teams. It was only after the petitioner was awarded second place that she came up with the grievances.
14. 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.
15. In the instant case, this Court does not find any patent illegality or apparent error in the impugned order, which warrants the exercise of the power of judicial WP(C) NO. 44378 OF 2024 8 2024:KER:94545 review.
The writ petition is devoid of any merits and is consequentially dismissed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS JUDGE NAB WP(C) NO. 44378 OF 2024 9 2024:KER:94545 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 44378/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF SUB DISTRICT LEVEL KALOLSAVAM DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEB SITE OF ULSAVAM.KITE.KERALA.GOV.IN EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 29.11.2024 OF SUBMITTING THE APPEAL ON PAYMENT OF RS.5000 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C3/5782/2024 DATED 03.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM MANUAL ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT