Kerala High Court
Fizan Abdul Jabbar (Minor) vs State Of Kerala on 4 December, 2024
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 43116 OF 2024
1
2024:KER:92063
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 43116 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
FIZAN ABDUL JABBAR (MINOR)
AGED 15 YEARS
S/O NADEERA JABBAR, THARAYIL HOUSE, CHOOLPURAM, KOTTAPADI
P.O., THRISSUR -680 505, REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND
AND GUARDIAN/MOTHER, NADEERA JABBAR, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O
ABDUL JABBAR A T, THARAYIL HOUSE, CHOOLPURAM, KOTTAPADI
P.O., THRISSUR ., PIN - 680 505.
BY ADVS.
ANJU DAVIS K.
SANDEEP GOPALAKRISHNAN
JINNU SARA GEORGE
ANAGHA HARIDAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO. 206, 2 ND FLOOR, SOUTH SANDWICH
BLOCK, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,
PIN - 695 001
2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION / THE GENERAL CONVENOR
THRISSUR REVENUE DISTRICT LEVEL KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM
2024-25, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL
STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 003
3 THE CHAIRMAN OF APPEAL COMMITTEE / THE DISTRICT EDUCATION
OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD,
THRISSUR ., PIN - 680506
GP SRI SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.12.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 43116 OF 2024
2
2024:KER:92063
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.43116 of 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of December, 2024
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P3 order and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner and his team to participate in the event 'HS Kolkali' in the Thrissur Revenue District Level Kerala School Kalolsavam 2024, scheduled to be held from 02.12.2024 to 07.12.2024.
2. The petitioner's case is that; he and his team had participated in the above event in the Kunnamkulam Sub District Level Competition. The petitioner and the team performed well in the competition. However, the stage was slippery and was not suitable for the performance. Two of the petitioner's team slipped and fell down. This was evident from the video recording. However, the judges of the event did not take the said matter into consideration. Consequently, another team was awarded the first prize. Although the petitioner preferred Ext.P1 Appeal before the 3rd respondent, by Ext.P3 cryptic order the appeal was WP(C) NO. 43116 OF 2024 3 2024:KER:92063 perfunctorily rejected. The 3rd respondent did not advert to any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Ext.P3 is illegal and arbitrary, and passed without any application of mind. 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. She contended that it is only due to the slippery condition of the stage that her team could not perform well. Even though the petitioner had pointed out the above aspects in the appeal, the 3 rd respondent failed to consider the same. Ext.P3 is erroneous. Hence, the writ petition may be allowed.
5. The learned Government Pleader opposed the writ petition. He submitted that the Judges had rightly evaluated the competition. He made available the score sheet of the competition and contended that the petitioner's team was only awarded the fourth place. The first holder had secured 264 marks and the petitioner's team secured only 249 marks, that is a difference of 15 marks. Therefore, WP(C) NO. 43116 OF 2024 4 2024:KER:92063 the petitioner cannot aspire to participate in the District Kerala School Kalolsavam. There is no illegality in Ext.P3 order. The writ petition is meritless and is only to be dismissed.
6. The petitioner's case is that; he and his team had competed in the above event, but due to the defects in the stage they could not perform well. The judges did not consider the above aspects in the proper prospective. Although, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, the Appellate Authority they also perfunctorily dismissed the appeal.
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 WP(C) NO. 43116 OF 2024 5 2024:KER:92063 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.
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 WP(C) NO. 43116 OF 2024 6 2024:KER:92063 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 considering that the Experts in the field of art, namely the Judges of the competition and the Appellate Authority, have concurrently concluded that the petitioner was only entitled to the fourth place, then it is not for this Court to sit in further appeal over the above decisions and take a contrary view. It is discernible that the Appellate Authority has considered the judges' observations and the marks of the participants, viewed the video of the event, and then rejected the appeal by the impugned order.
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 reasoning are final in such matters.
11. On a perusal of the score sheet, it is quite evident WP(C) NO. 43116 OF 2024 7 2024:KER:92063 that the petitioner had secured 15 marks lesser than the first prize team. Even if the contentions of the petitioner are taken on its face value, all the five teams had competed in the event in the very same conditions. It was taking into account these aspects when the judges had awarded the best team the first prize.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. In the instant case, this Court does not find any patent illegality or apparent error in the impugned order WP(C) NO. 43116 OF 2024 8 2024:KER:92063 that 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 SCB WP(C) NO. 43116 OF 2024 9 2024:KER:92063 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43116/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 20.11.2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3 RD RESPONDENT RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER ON 26.11.2024 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2024 PASSED BY THE 3 RD RESPONDENT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2024 PASSED BY THE 3 RD RESPONDENT ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED A STUDENT OF THE G.H.S.S. ERUMAPETTY