Kerala High Court
Vishnu Thejasi N M vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 298 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:814
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. 298 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
VISHNU THEJASI N M
AGED 14 YEARS
AGED 14 YEARS (MINOR) D/O. BAIJU N M, RESIDING AT
NADUKKANDI MEETHAL KANNANKARA P O, CHELANNUR
VILLAGE, CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY HER NEXT FRIEND AND
GUARDIAN BAIJU N M, AGED 49 YEARS S/O VELLAN,
RESIDING AT NADUKKANDI MEETHAL KANNANKARA P O,
CHELANNUR VILLAGE, CALICUT, PIN - 673616
BY ADV AHAMMAD SACHIN K.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED TY THE SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO. 206, SECOND FLOOR, SOUTH
SANDWICH BLOCK, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GENERAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
2 THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION/GENERAL
CONVENER
KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2024-2025, ROOM NO.
206, SECOND FLOOR, SOUTH SANDWICH BLOCK, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GENERAL.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION/THE JOINT GENERAL
CONVENER
KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2024-2025, OFFICE OF THE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE REVENUE
DISTRICT, MANANCHIRA.P.O. KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN -
673014
4 THE CHAIRMAN/ DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
WP(C) NO. 298 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:814
APPEAL COMMITTEE OF REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL
KALOLSAVAM, HIGH SCHOOL WING, MANANCHIRA.P.O.,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673014
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMRI SYAMANTHAK B S
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 298 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:814
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.298 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4 order and to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the "Group Dance (Girls)" (HS General) competition to be held in connection with the Kerala State School Youth Festival.
2. The petitioner and her team had participated in the Group Dance competition in the Kozhikode Revenue District School Kalolsavam 2024-25. Even though the petitioner and her team had performed well, they could only secure an 'A Grade' because one of the members of the petitioner's team got injured from the properties kept in the stage. Aggrieved by the order of the Judges, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the 4 th respondent. However, the 4th respondent rejected the appeal by Ext.P4 cryptic and non-speaking order. As per the Kalolsavam Manual, the Appeal Committee was to be WP(C) NO. 298 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:814 headed by a Joint Director. However, in the case on hand, the Appeal Committee was headed by the Chief Planning Officer of the Directorate of General Education, which is in violation of the Manual. In a similar matter, by an interim order in WP(C) No.45245/2024, this Court had permitted the petitioner therein to participate in the Kerala State School Kalolsavam. Ext.P4 is illegal and arbitrary. 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. He contended that it was considering the violation of the Kalolsavam Manual, by an interim order in WP(C) No.45245/2024, this Court had permitted the petitioner therein to participate in the Kerala State School Kalolsavam. The petitioner and her team are equally placed to the petitioner in WP(C) No.45245/2024. Therefore, the petitioner and her team may be permitted to participate in the Kerala State School Kalolsavam. Hence, the writ petition may be allowed.
WP(C) NO. 298 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:814
5. The learned Government Pleader opposed the application. He submitted that the respondents have already filed an application to vacate the order in WP(C) No.45245/2024. According to the learned Government Pleader, as per the School Kalolsavam Manual, the District Level Appeal Committee is to be constituted by the Joint Director, General Education/ Deputy Director of Education, General Education Department/Deputy Director of Education of other Districts including Regional Deputy Director (HSE) and Assistant Director (VHSE) as Appeal Committee members. As per the constitution of the District Level Committee, the Joint Director of General Education, the Deputy Director of Education of the Directorate of General Education or the Deputy Director of other Districts could be appointed as a Chairman of the Appeal Committee. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner that the Chief Planning Officer of the Directorate of General Education is incompetent, is untenable. He contended that as per the Stage Manager's report, there was no defect in the stage as contended by the petitioner. WP(C) NO. 298 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:814 The Judges have rightly evaluated the competition, which was re-appreciated by the Appeal Committee. Both Authorities have concurrently found that the petitioner and her team are only entitled to only an 'A Grade'. This writ petition is meritless and is only to be dismissed.
6. The petitioner's case is that her team's performance was adversely affected due to the defects on the stage. Similarly, the Appeal Committee was headed by incompetent officers.
7. Indisputably, all the teams who participated in the competition performed during the same time at the very same stage. The Stage Manager's report shows that there was no defect on the stage. Moreover, the petitioner and her team had not raised any complaint before or during the performance. It was after the results were declared, the petitioner had raised the above complaints. Similarly, I accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the Appeal Committee can comprise of the Joint Director, Deputy Director of Education or the Deputy Director of Education of other WP(C) NO. 298 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:814 Districts as mentioned above, who all hold interchangeable posts. I do not find any illegality in the constitution of the Appeal Committee.
8. The Judges of the above competition and the Appellate Authority have considered the petitioner's grievances and have concluded that the petitioner and her team are only entitled to 'A' Grade.
9. In Rhomy Chandra Mohan v Gen. Convenor, Balakalotsavam and Yuvajanotsavam, [(1992) KHC 211] this Court has held as follows:
"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 wellknown 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 WP(C) NO. 298 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:814 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. 298 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:814
10. This Court has repeatedly reiterated the above 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 an analysis of 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 team were only entitled to 'A' grade, it is not for this Court to sit in further appeal over the above decisions and take a contrary view.
12. The Judges and the Appellate Authority 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 participants' WP(C) NO. 298 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:814 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.
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 review. The writ petition is devoid of any merits and is consequentially dismissed.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rkc/06.01.25 WP(C) NO. 298 OF 2025 11 2025:KER:814 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 298/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF THEERTHA V DATED 21.11.2024 ISSUED FROM THE ASTER MIMS HOSPITAL, CALICUT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE SHEET OF SANGHA NRUTHAM (GIRLS) HS GENERAL) WITH RESPECT TO KOZHIKODE DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM 2024-2025 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING SUBMISSION OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY DATED 22.11.2024 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C2/9152/2024(127) DATED 07.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE KERALA KALOLSAVAM MANUAL Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONORABLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 45245 OF 2024 DATED 24.12.2024